10

Kudlow Hits Back At Obama Claiming Credit For ‘Economic Miracle’

Posted by  $  Your_Name_Goes_Here 10 months, 3 weeks ago to Politics
55 comments | Share | Flag

I'd love to say this to Our (former) Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...):

"You didn't build that... somebody else built that..."

This schmuck cannot stay out of the limelight, and just can't resist twisting the truth. Remember his statement that the new normal was 2 percent GDP growth? Remember his statement that manufacturing jobs would never return (and some have)? Etc. Obama belongs in the trash heap of history for the damage that he inflicted on the country during his eight years in office.
SOURCE URL: https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/23/kudlow-obama-credit-economic-miracle/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  exceller 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Yes, one of the news outlets was counting how many times Hussein said "Me, Myself, I" in his speech.

    There are some people I don't watch and always change channels: Obama is on top, followed by H Clinton and the rest of the cabal on the left.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  gharkness 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      I certainly understand the sentiment; however, I find it useful to keep an eye on what the bad guys are up to. As distasteful as that is!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Yes, you have a point.

        The fact is that at FOX Tucker and Hannity regularly put on these characters, what's more, invite them to the studio to debate them. Which means we are exposed to their crap as if watching MSNBC or CNN. No, thanks.

        I usually find out what they are currently doing anyway. There is no escaping from that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    History will likely show that the Obama administration poured gasoline on the sparks of the unCivil War.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rex_Little 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Depends on who writes the history. Considering that the MSM called Trump "inflammatory" from the get-go, and Antifa violence spiked after he took office, it will be all too easy to blame him for the gasoline.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Unfortunately History will NOT tell the truth about Obama and what he did or didn't do. It will ultimately continue the lies. His followers will remain hypnotized by his words, whatever they are, and that's what History will record. I base this theory on what our youth (those younger than me) seem to have learned about Vietnam, it's mostly a bunch of lies based only on the political rhetoric of the day, not on the real facts. I guess it really doesn't matter much as we'll all be gone before we feel the real effect of the false History and everyone else will just have to experience the truths over again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    Your Name Goes Here:
    I'd like to thank you for your use of the word "Schmuck" It's a great old Yiddish word designating the male reproductive organ , but is actually a word translated literally as "Jewell." I am trying to revive this grand old word because it fits so many politicians of this era.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Hi Herb! I'm not Jewish, but thanks to my Jewish friends I knew its meaning. :)

      That word just felt appropriate to use, although some may take it as an offense to their manhood. To those, I humbly apologize. ;-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    The former narcissistic Liar-In-Chief has slimmed on to become the Narcissist Deep State Subverter.
    He was already a a Constitution-despising traitor before he became Candidate Oblowhard, and I'm talking about his winning that Senate seat where he liked to vote "present" a lot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    I give Obama credit for part of the springboard effect the economy has had. When Hussien left office he had to take his foot off of the neck of the economy. President Trump has Worked at removing regulations not expanding them. Add tax cuts and has 4 million off food stamps because of better employment opportunities.
    ,He is improving our trade disasters, increased US competitiveness. Next on his agenda is the Federal Reserve Cabal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
      I give Obama "credit" for delaying the recovery until a businessman took the office and brought sanity into the reduction of government regulations and also to fiscal policies. I'm repeating much of what I stated in my response to CircuitGuy I suppose, so I'll stop here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -5
    Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
    "So when you hear all this talk about economic miracles right now. Remember who started it. "
    The economy is great because of millions of actions of people finding ways to help one another for money or barter. That's what "the economy" is. It's someone staying late and working OT to help a business and earn extra money. It's someone offering to take away my junk so she can fix it up and sell it. It's people taking a chance, investing money into technologies that may help millions of people or may be a lesson in what not to do.

    So often I see people doing this, serving one another as agreed, paying as agreed, and not just phoning it in. That's "the economy".

    President Obama was my favorite president of my lifetime. He seemed more like someone I would know and relate to. I supposed that's part of his job, to project a relatable persona. I love that he didn't have scandals, and his critics have make things up or take utterances out of context.

    The one issue of the president and economics that stood out to me was how he took office during the financial crisis and warned of the dire consequences of not doing more stimulus. I voted for hope, and that was fear. I wanted inspirational speeches about how people can solve their problems by putting their nose to the grindstone. Of course, his critics complained unemployment didn't rise fast enough. They wanted more stimulus, apparently. They laughed at his correct assertion that automation was causing employment to lag GDP growth. So you can't win in politics. But I admire and miss him, despite the stimulus, less than hopeful rhetoric at the beginning, and his going along with the notion that POTUS is responsible for the economy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by  $  Dobrien 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      'I love that he didn't have scandals' says Circuit Guy
      Maybe this stimulus will in a Fast and Furious way jog your memory. It has Bhengazi along time since that $1,500,000,000 cash landed in IRAN. IRS weaponized against political opponents . Using FISA to Spy
      on your political opponents. His and Hillary's use of a compromised private server.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -5
        Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        ^^ This is exactly what I mean. In the absence of scandals, people have to turn to stuff like this, more words said as an epithet as if there were some scandal behind them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  exceller 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          Good to be one of the sheep in the herd.

          Hussein was the most scandalous presidents the country ever had, hopefully the last.

          If you don't consider the scandals Dobrien listed as such, what do you think they were? Business as usual? You may be right, that was how Obama "ran" the country.

          To me the most heinous of scandals was his intent to influence the 2016 elections in favor of Clinton. Mind you, he was equally ruthless when he ran against Clinton, but that was all forgotten in the name of sticking together as good communists do.

          The extent of the conspiratorial effort to prevent Trump become president is huge and we are still suffering the consequences as many Hussein acolytes are still in place. Apparently that is all nil to you.

          Let me ask you this: what do you think of Maduro?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          It depends on what you call a scandal. It's clear that Obama himself had no personal, obvious moral slip ups, but the actions of some of his administration give one serious pause. Weaponizing the IRS indicates a desire for dictatorial power. Is that scandalous? It depends.

          Fast and Furious was an obvious, blundering attempt to "sting" law abiding gun dealers, to be able to accuse them of supplying Mexican narcoterrorists. Was using criminal straw buyers as a foil, then failing to have in place the means to track those guns a scandal? It depends. The death of a Border Patrol member, and the deaths of innocent Mexicans from the guns the ATF placed in the hands of the cartels was a tragedy, but was it a scandal? It depends. Was the attempt by Holder's DOJ to cover up the botched project a scandal? It depends.

          Was Obama's Secretary of State hesitating to rescue the Americans in Benghazi out of fear it would be embarrassing to the toothless Libyan government a scandal? If you view the resulting deaths of our ambassador and three other Americans as a result an outrage, is it a scandal? It depends.

          Obama's Secretary of State committed a crime by her negligent disregard for the risk to national security in using a private personal server for the conduct of official business. Is that a scandal? Was the subsequent collusion with the DOJ and FBI to cover up and disregard her crime a scandal? It depends.

          The Russians' attempt to influence American elections was first discovered by the Obama administration. Was the failure to disclose this to the American people a scandal? Again, it depends.

          If you're a moral, law abiding, dedicated patriot, I maintain they were all scandals that make Nixon's sins pale by comparison. If you're a Clintonian moral relativist, then I guess none of them are scandals. It depends.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            The only one of those that I suspect might have happened and been related to President Obama was the IRS scandal. I don't know if it was investigated and proven. It smelled bad.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
              You will note that I didn't point any of these directly at Obama, but I do contend that his statement that his administration was free of scandals is patently false.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      "President Obama was my favorite president of my lifetime. He seemed more like someone I would know and relate to. "
      "But I admire and miss him, despite the stimulus."

      Do you admire him for being the Chief divider? The nation split under his tenure in the worst possible way.

      Do you admire him for stifling the economy with all his regulations? He said it was not possible to grow at more than 2% rate. Maybe that escaped your attention.

      Do you admire him for making us the laughing stock for his foreign policy, just to name a few "admirable actions"?

      You are probably getting your ideas from the NYT. Wonder what are you doing on this board?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      Obama used the tools based on his socialist mindset to keep the recession from descending into depression: throwing lots of money at keeping government at all levels healthy; most of his "stimulus" money went to state and local governments to keep first responders employed. He had the intention of funding infrastructure projects, but as he discovered, the laborious paperwork and environmental impact studies would mean the projects would take years to begin, or as he put it "I guess shovel ready projects weren't so ready."

      Obama seemed not to understand that the best way government can help stimulate the economy is to step aside and let market forces work. What kept the U.S. economy experience modest growth during his administration was, ironically, the robustness of the very fossil fuel industry he set out to destroy. Legal action held off much of the impact of the mountain of regulatory changes he wanted which really would have driven the economy under water to a less than 1% growth. A Clinton presidency would have sustained those regulations and driven us into at least another recession.

      It takes more than noble-sounding oratory to make an effective president. I, and others voted for Trump because we felt Obama had missed the opportunity to bring us together, and recognized it was time for a real disrupter who would force change. Rand Paul was my first choice, but when it became obvious he was being swept aside in favor of swamp creatures like another Bush, I was left with two choices: Ted Cruz, whose oratory sounded strident and preachy, or Trump, a very controversial reality TV show host, but a successful businessman who I felt would understand how to really stimulate the economy. I do not regret my choice. The economy is booming, and we have returned to a position of international respect To borrow from great spokesmen of the past, it isn't important if they like you or hate you, but it is important that they respect you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
        Well stated! I firmly believe that Our (former) Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...) intentionally stood in the way of economic recovery. Can I prove that? No. But his entire presidency was focused on "taking America down a notch" in world stature. Fortunately, we now have a President that has restored us to superpower status.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -4
        Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "but it is important that they respect you."
        I literally laughed out loud at this. If I understand the context you're talking about President Trump, who's best skill is being a clown, a train wreck people can't look away from. I suspect in the future we'll find out he was an addict of some sort. People on his staff have openly said we should ignore what he says and focus on what his administration does. His supporters figure maybe it's okay he entertains the rubes with his carnival huckster act while turning over actual policy to think tanks. That makes some sense, but I am concerned that if there is an actual conflict an enemy might perceive, rightly or wrongly, that we don't really know who's in charge. I hope I'm wrong about that. If we really need a president that commands respect, i.e. the opposite of making people feel embarrassed for him as they would watching a drunk in a job over his head, we're in deep trouble.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
          People respected Obama personally because he had a polished demeanor, but his stumbling around in foreign affairs was a disaster. Generic apologies for whatever we might have done presented a sense of someone who wasn't entirely sure of what he was talking about. His thinking about maybe if we started being nice to the really bad actors internationally they would themselves become nicer was pathetic. He viewed America's enemies as entirely domestic, and spent more time attacking Americans than he did America's real foreign enemies.

          Obama's response to Syria's use of poison gas on helpless civilians was an embarrassment. After drawing a "red line" implying action if Assad used the weapons, he did nothing about it when Assad stepped over that line. Trump responded by hammering Syria's air force. Obama's response painted a picture of an impotent America, while Trump's response made it clear we were not afraid to use force in defense of our people or the helpless.

          Obama fed Iran lots of cash to fund terrorist actions, and signed a meaningless agreement with them that he didn't dare present to Congress for consent, given bipartisan opposition. Trump stepped away from the agreement because he recognized Iran as an untrustworthy, dangerous element in the Middle East.

          Obama whined about our NATO allies not meeting their defense expenditures, and they ignored him, having realized his words had no follow up. Trump threatened to walk away from the NATO treaty if the Europeans didn't meet their obligations, and they responded, because by then it was clear he meant what he said. That's what known as respect.

          Obama signed on to the Paris accords that punished America, which is the only developed country that has really reduced its GHG emissions, and gave China a pass to continue increasing its emissions until 2030. Once again, Obama didn't dare give Congress the chance to weigh in on this agreement. Trump walked away from the accords, and even many Democrats agreed with him.

          Obama again made us a doormat with the Pacific trade agreement that penalized the U.S. and mashed smaller Pacific nations economies. Again he avoided passing this by Congress out of fear they would veto it. Trump walked away from this travesty, insisting that America and other nations would have better trade relations with bilateral agreements that recognized each other's best interests. China didn't like Trump's action, but most of the other Pacific nations applauded him for it. That's called respect.

          America in the past had avoided responding to North Korea's angry blusters (not just Obama this time) except by trying to appease them by handing out goodies that made no change. Trump warned NK that they risked devastation with unending threats and cheating on agreements. Apparently Trump gained respect from Kim Jong Un, which appears to have made peace on the Korean peninsula a real possibility.

          Obama acted very much as an authoritarian leader, using his executive orders as imperial decrees, rendering Congress impotent. Trump pushes Congress to do its job, and has withheld executive power even when he could use it. He could have fired Mueller over a year ago, but has allowed the witch hunt to continue in spite of the drag it puts on his ability to do his job.

          Obama was an arrogant narcissistic snob, rarely consulting with Congressional leaders, even the Democrats. Trump consults with anyone he feels has skin in the game, even Democrats. One acted as though he was a monarch, the other as the leader of a free people. Regardless how inelegant Trump may be, the results of his actions have earned him respect.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            I think all of this patently false with a few exceptions:
            - President Trump's airstraikes were the correct response, given the post-WWII order.
            - President Obama's executive orders expanded the power of the Executive branch and the presidency beyond their Constitutional limits.

            We'd have to take the rest of the partisan talking points one at a time.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
              I fault congress for failing to check many past presidents for abuse of power. Obama just took it a notable step further. He isn't the first president to get called on it by the judiciary, just the latest.

              It is a fact that Obama consulted with congressional leaders far less than his predecessors. Even Schumer admitted he had much less contact with Obama than he did with Bush. Again, he isn't the first president to keep to his inner circle, but you have to cringe when it's been noted that he matched Nixon in that respect.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                I think Congress is sometimes happy to leave it to the president to avoid responsibility if things go bad. President Obama said aloud if Congress fails to do its job, the executive branch would act (without regard to its Constitutional role).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                  I could understand his frustration, but he missed an opportunity early in his administration. The Republicans in congress, like many of us, had heard his entreaties during his campaign, to work together, and presented their ideas for addressing issues he had, expecting dialogue to follow. He refused to consider any of their ideas, essentially telling them that because he won, he didn't have to listen to anything they had to say. That came back to bite him.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      "It's someone staying late and working OT to help a business and earn extra money. It's someone offering to take away my junk so she can fix it up and sell it."

      Absolutely, but Obama wanted none of this.

      It was Obama who introduced the "cash-for-clunkers" program, where in exchange for complete government oversight of your automobile sales business, you could buy perfectly good used vehicles and fill their engines with sand, preventing others from fixing them up and selling them to others.

      It was Obama who pushed for the ACA which demanded that everyone - except for those companies he granted an illegal executive stay to - provide the most expensive healthcare to their employees and demanded that even those who wanted to opt out, could not. It was also his HHS department that paid a Canadian firm two billion dollars to put together a website that never worked. (They had to hire a second company to put out the actual ACA website which was still plagued with delays and all kinds of other problems.) And it was Obama who repeatedly lied to the American people that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor", "if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan", and "every American family is going to save $2500." In reality, healthcare costs doubled in many areas and many healthcare insurers closed up shop entirely.

      It was Obama who pushed for de facto firearms controls by pushing banks to stop doing business with firearms dealers. See Operation Chokepoint.

      It was Obama who pushed so-called "green" energy by upping fuel economy standards to the realm of the absurd, pushed for government tax dollars to fund failed companies like Solyndra, and signed an executive agreement (despite the Senate's rejection) of the Paris Climate accords. He also pushed for more adoption of engine-damaging and energy-draining ethanol.

      It was Obama's taxes which prolonged unemployment and the economic malaise from the crash in '08. And he doubled down on his policies by telling Americans that this was "the new normal".

      It was during Obama's reign that the Fed implemented "Quantitative Easing" as a way to transfer billions of dollars of wealth from taxpayers to the Federal Reserve.

      It was during Obama's reign that bureaucratic rules and rule-makers imposed trillions of dollars of new costs on American businesses, among them EPA regulations meant to cripple the coal industry and which he, himself repeatedly touted.

      And this doesn't even get into the outright scandals such as the IRS targeting of conservative groups during the 2012 elections, the politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice and FBI (as we are still seeing being exposed with the Hillary Clinton email scandals and politically-motivated Mueller investigation). It doesn't cover Benghazi where a US Ambassador was assassinated despite his calls for increased security. Nor does it include the Fast and Furious program which resulted not only the deaths of several US Border Patrol agents, but thousands of Mexicans to drug cartels. It doesn't include Obama's meddling in Israel's elections. It doesn't include his feckless policies in the Middle East which facilitated the rise of ISIS and trivialized Al Qaeda. It ignores Obama's failure to respond to the Russian invasion of Crimea or his "red line" in Syria.

      I don't admire Obama one bit. He was the most corrupt President in the History of the United States, bar none. That he wasn't Impeached for his efforts was more an indictment of the feckless Republicans in the House than it was a proof of Obama's greatness.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
      You're right that the economy is a complex animal. But in addition to the items you mention, an extremely significant part of the economy is the investment position of tens or hundreds of thousands of companies that make up the employment base in this country. They decide when to grow and when to contract. They decide when to invest and when to park their monies on the sideline. Financial uncertainties and government policies go hand-in-hand with the calculus of those decisions.

      I certainly did NOT want more "stimulus". Stimulus was figuratively printing $1 trillion per year and casting it into the wind hoping for positive economic outcomes. That was done to shore up large banks who had made poor (and in some case criminal) decisions. When terra firma morphed into sand, those banks lost their financial underpinnings. Was it good to prop them up by further injuring the economy through the dilution of the dollar?

      What I wanted to see was fewer government rules and regulations that stifled the opportunity for business growth. I wanted to see no further income redistribution from my pocket to others' pockets. We did not get that from Obama. His policies were responsible for the slow recovery (as slow as that from the Great Depression). He either didn't understand that he was getting in the way of the recovery, or he intentionally stood in the way of the recovery. From the comments he has made throughout his life, it is hard to believe anything but the latter.

      That's my $0.02... your mileage may vary and will no doubt be lower in California.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        "I certainly did NOT want more "stimulus".
        I didn't either, for the reasons in my post below and the reasons you state.

        "I wanted to see was fewer government rules and regulations that stifled the opportunity for business growth."
        I want only rules that prevent law suits and not rules designed to stifle competition. Suppose companies are leaking chemicals, noise, or something else that's devaluing neighbors' property. I want rules that prevent the law suits and just set a reasonable standard. What I hate are rules design to protect a company, like when a huge company invests in some safety equipment or testings and then lobbies to make the gov't force competitors, who can't afford the expense, to do likewise.

        "I wanted to see no further income redistribution from my pocket to others' pockets. "
        Marginal taxes have been bobbing around the same values for a long time. Rates went up to where they were in the 90s, but it hasn't caused my family to significantly change how much we set aside for quarterlies. I'm lucky if I estimate within 10% how much to send. So while you're correct taxes fluctuate and it affects the economy, I haven't seen a major change in tax policy in my life, or at least since I started making enough to pay significant taxes.

        BTW, the recent tax cut was great IMHO because it cut rates and simplified things. I would support it wholeheartedly if the gov't had also initiated small across-the-board spending cuts instead of increasing gov't spending.

        "His policies were responsible for the slow recovery"
        I don't think we should use fiscal policy to affect the economic cycle, but to the extent we do use it, I think it's a blunt instrument. You just borrow money, and it primes the pump. The best way is probably and across-the-board tax cut. But it doesn't make that much difference. It's the borrowing that does the trick. It's like the hair-of-the-dog treatment for the shakes of alcohol withdrawal. Any alcohol will do the job, until it wears off and you need to do it again.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
          Obama's fiscal policy has the lasting legacy of doubling the national debt accumulated by all of his predecessors. That has negative impact on our economy.

          Obama ran his presidency thinking government knows best. That is demonstrated over and over - from his campaign (remember Joe the Plumber?) to his presidency. By March 2016, the beneficiary role grew by almost 25 percent from Obama's grand entrance to the White House in 2009. Same percentage growth for Medicare. Food Stamp recipients grew by one third over his terms. And who can forget Obamacare! "We have to pass it so we can see what is in it". What a classic Pelosi moment. All of this is income redistribution. From my pocket to someone else's, and I have no say about it.

          Many more examples of Obama policy failures, but it is too depressing to think about them, so I'm going to end this post..
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            "Obama's fiscal policy has the lasting legacy of doubling the national debt accumulated by all of his predecessors. That has negative impact on our economy."
            Yes. You could replace "Obama" with any president in my lifetime except for Clinton in that sentence, and it would be true. And with Clinton, it was the Newt Gingrich Republicans who deserve at least half the credit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
        I agree with all of that, except I don't think President Obama slowed the recovery and I think he was better than average on all those issues but nothing like Ron Paul or the few people who really stand up for limited government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
          Besides printing money, what did he do to accelerate the recovery? I've outlined what I saw him do (or not do) from my perspective, and I don't believe it is refutable.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
            "What did [President Obama] do to accelerate the recovery?"
            I do not think the president of the US should do anything to affect the economic cycle, including accelerating the recovery, except making inspiring speeches.

            That being said, when the bond crisis hit, the financial industry convinced Presidents Bush to support bailout measures and President Obama to support huge borrowing. The loose fiscal and monetary policy made up the deleveraging in the financial industry and kept unemployment from going higher. Proponents of this (not I) think it's worth 1 trillion dollars of debt to prime the pump, generation > 1 trillion dollars of wealth that would have been lost with production capacity sitting idle, with consumers too cautious to spend causing companies not to hire, making consumers cautious to spend, in a vicious cycle. I actually agree with that much of it, but the problem comes with the economy expands and we can't stop borrowing. We were still borrowing $400 billion/yr at the end of Obama's administration, even though the economy was in expansion. Then in a fluke, the electoral college gave us a clown for a president, who increased borrowing to near $1 trillion a year even though the economy was expanding faster than ever. There's no room for more fiscal stimulus during the next recession. For this reason, I do not want politicians using fiscal policy to influence the economic cycle.

            I actually wrote letters urging my representatives to scale back bailout and stimulus measures, but I got no sign from staffers I had any influence. I was in the minority.

            "Besides printing money"
            A nitpicking point: The Fed did QE, not President Obama. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, though, because monetary policy (and having the reserve currency of the world) made the fiscal stimulus possible. So it's sort of fair to say "Obama printed money". Of course, there is a bigger deficit with Trump as president, and President Trump openly urged the Fed to pursue loose monetary policy, so we have to say Trump prints money too, using the same rule.

            "I've outlined what I saw him do (or not do) from my perspective, and I don't believe it is refutable."
            I'll post a reply to that original comment.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  10 months, 3 weeks ago
              Policies have economic impact. Period. Add stifling environmental policies will add cost to business operations. That means less money for expansion, and hence less job growth. We can't stick our heads in the sand and say that the President shouldn't do anything. By virtue of policy and legislation, they DO things that impact the economic cycle.

              But in order for Obama to claim credit for this economic growth, he must believe that he DID do something. Maybe a participation trophy is in order for Our (former) Dear Leader, The One, Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm...)

              One more time now, with feeling:
              https://youtu.be/9Ty7WU872Lk
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 months, 3 weeks ago
                "Policies have economic impact. Add stifling environmental policies will add cost to business operations.""
                I do not agree that fluctuations in the economic cycle can be traced to policies. I things like debt and global warming are very costly long-term because they slow growth, but I don't think you can say particular presidents didn't do enough on these issues and that caused the cycle to move to the next stage. We are in expansion now. The next stage is contraction. It has nothing to do with this year's policies.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo