How Has President Obama Done In His Last Six Years So Far?

(modified question) - Do You Consider The First SEVEN 1/2 Years of the Obama Administration To Be a Success or a Failure

One of these Days You will Surprise Me and Really Take These Surveys I Put Out :-)

Do You Consider The First Two Years of the Obama Administration To Be a Success or a Failure

See results without voting
PRESIDENT OBAMA
PRESIDENT OBAMA

The Opinion Poll Is Out

NEWT Gingrich, one of the leading Social Dominators of the Conservative faction of the Republican Party had this to say a in late January of 2011 regarding the success of President Obama's first two years. Did he read the same poll? Is he speaking about the same America you live in or one he has invented in his mind? You be the judge.

In an interview with Human Events, a Conservative media, publiched Friday, Gingrich saidL "I think it's fascinating , you're sort of seeing the beginning of the third term of the Clintons because the first two years of Obama was such a failure in popular acceptance."

This CNN Opinion Poll, just released, asked the same question that is in the above poll. The results, on the face of it, were not that great for President Obama. From my point of view that is sad.The top level results are as follows:

Response 
Nov 2014
Jan 2012
Jan 2011
Jan 2010
Jul - Aug 2009
Success 
45%
49%
45% 
47% 
51%
Failure 
41%
47%
48% 
48% 
37%
Too Soon To Tell 
6%
-
5% 
4% 
11%
Don't Know, Not Sure
7%
4%
2%
1%
1%

What do these numbers tell us ... not a whole lot. The little it does tell us isn't good for President Obama. There was a large drop in those who thought President Obama was doing a good job from the middle of 2009 until January of 2010. Worse, there was an even more significant increase in those who thought he was failing which came from those who previously thought it was "too soon to tell" and possibly soon from the success column.

There really isn't much movement from 2010 to 2011 with some encouragement coming from the fact that there was no increase in those who that the Obama administration was failing. It would seem that President Obama, barring some catastrophe, may have bottomed out in his rating.

As boring as the above numbers are, they do get somewhat more exciting, at least to statisticians and pollsters anyway, when you drill down a little bit.

Below The Iceburg

Normally in polling, the top level numbers don't tell you much and are very often misleading. For example, when health care was being debated and polls were being taken and reported, the Conservatives loved to Trumpet that a little over 50% of Americans (of course they said "most" or "all" Americans, but who is counting) were against some form of public option health care! This was after the single-payer alternative had been thrown overboard. Over and over and over and over they said this and it won over the public because the Democrats had glued their own lips shut and refused to fight.

The problem is, the Conservatives were really lying and lying and lying and lying, over and over and over and over again. Why, you ask? Because what they purposely hid fichrom you and which the Democrats, bless their inept little hearts, didn't effectively point out, was that somewhere around 8% of those against the health care reform were opposed to it because IT DIDN"T GO FAR ENOUGH!!!. What should have been reported but wasn't was something like:

  • Favor Current Health Care Reform - 47%
  • Oppose Current Health Care Reform Bill Because It Doesn't Go Far Enough - 8%
  • Oppose Current Health Care Reform Bill Because It Goes Too Far - 45%

(I don't remember what the actual numbers were, but I do remember that the Conservative position was below that of the Democratic position once you took out those who wanted even more reform.) I bet y'all didn't know that did you. :-)

Anyway, you sort of that with this CNN Opinion Poll. I am sad to say though that the data I have only has information for 2011 and not earlier years to compare it with.

How Does Age Affect Viewpoint?

Response 
35 - 49 
50 - 64 
65+
Success 
38% 
41% 
46%
Failure 
51% 
56% 
44%
Too Soon To Know
8% 
2% 
8%
Don't Know or Not Sure 
1%
1%
2%
TABLE 1

The good news for President Obama is that he seems to have retained the support of those drawing Social Security which should be important in the upcoming battle over the Conservative's attempt to dismantle health care reform.

He seems to have lost, for the moment, those getting set to draw Social Security. There are few people sitting on the sidelines.

Middle age folks seem to be a bit ambivalent even though the Success/Failure numbers look horrible. The reason is the number of people sitting back waiting. If environment does turn in Obama's favor, then these people will likely go to the Success column and even things out.

I have no clue as to why the young adults were not counted.

Money Matters

Response 
Earns < $50K 
Earns >$50 
Success 
49% 
43% 
Failure 
41% 
52% 
To Soon To Tell
8% 
3% 
Don't Know, Not Sure
2%
2%
TABLE 2

 This is not too surprising given minorities, who tend to support President Obama, earn on the lower end of the income scale.

So Does Education

Response 
No College 
Attended College 
Success 
43% 
47% 
Failure 
50% 
45% 
Too Soon To  Know
5% 
6% 
Don't Know, Not Sure
1%
2%
TABLE 3

 Here we find another constituency that has not abandoned President Obama; those who are more educated.  While I don't know the split between Republicans and Democrats who have attended college, I do know from other research that among whites who have not attended college, they tend to be Conservative.

How Does Party Affect The Results

Results 
Democrat 
Independent 
Republican
Success 
74% 
46% 
14%
Failure 
19% 
45% 
83%
Too Soon To Know 
7% 
6% 
3%
Don't Know - Not Sure 
1%
1%
TABLE 4

How Does Political Viewpoint?

Response 
Liberal 
Moderate 
Conservative
Success 
74% 
51% 
21%
Failure 
19% 
39% 
75%
Too Soon To Know
7% 
6% 
2%
Don't Know, Not Sure  
*
1%
1%
TABLE 5

THESE two sets of statistics are very telling and gives us understanding of the top level results. First look at Table 4 where Viewpoint by Party is presented. One of the results is expected, the very heavy bias against Obama by those who identify themselves as Republicans. On the other hand, given all of the press lately, I am surprised to find Independents giving President Obama a one point nod toward success. But even so, there are 10% sitting around waiting to see what happens. What did Obama, though, were the the Democrats; almost 20% give President Obama an F! I am guessing because he was too conservative

Now, here we have the same situation as when I wrote about the health care reform statistics earlier. 20% of the Democrats are failing their leader because he is being too Conservative!

Now, let's look at Table 5 which considers political viewpoint, which isn't necessarily related to party. These are really interesting, fun, and complex numbers. At first glance, things seem counter-intuitive; the numbers don't seem to agree with those in Table 4, the Results by Party table. Why? Look at how big the Success number is for Moderates and how much higher the Success rate is for Conservatives than it is for Republicans while the Liberal/Democrat numbers are identical. All of this points to Obama having a higher Success rate than Failure which, of course, he doesn't. How can this be?

Because of really boring mathematics, that is why. Nobody really pays attention to those "Sampling Error" numbers that you normally get with poll results; you know + or - 3%. Well it turns out they also give me an idea of how many people were questioned in the poll and, in this case, the number of Liberals in the mix were significantly less than Moderates or Conservatives, which had about the same numbers. (You can't see this since I didn't present the Sampling Error data.) But what that ultimately means is the Liberals carry much less weight in determining the final result than the other two so that when the dust settles, the mathematics works out right. (Now do see why it is so much fun?)

Now, about those numbers; there are surprises everywhere. Who would have thunk that 21% of those people who consider themselves Conservative would think President Obama has Succeeded in his first two years! I wouldn't have. President Obama must take great heart in knowing that he has at least one constituency where over 50% (barely) think he is a success with another 9% waiting a little more before deciding. Only 39% think he is failing; that number blew me away as well.

The one I wasn't surprised about was the Liberal results; they feel a might sold out at the moment. Now you can watch me turn a pig's ear into a silk purse, or however that saying goes.

I think these two tables tell a much different and positive story than the original numbers do. All in all, middle America seems to like the job the President and his administration are doing. It is the extremes that are dragging his numbers down. This is bad news for the Conservatives because it clearly shows that their only support is from Conservatives and those that identify themselves as Republicans. The Republicans have pushed away Moderates who support Obama, or, who are waiting and seeing, even given the results of the November 2010 elections. Couple this with the fact that the samples contained roughly equal numbers of Moderates and Conservatives and that there are more Independents than Democrats and more Democrats than Republicans. If the sampling technique was honest, then what we are looking at is the distribution of the whole population. What this tells me is that the Conservative's hold on office is tenuous at best and Obama's prospects should be good.

What Does Race Say? Nothing Good :-(

Results 
White 
Non-White 
Success 
35% 
72% 
Failure 
59% 
19% 
Too Soon To Tell 
5% 
9% 
No Opinion
1%
*

The Worst For Last

I saved the worst statistic for last. It's enough to make you weep. At least I hope you are weeping. To see that kind of dichatomy is extremely disturbing to me. Even though issue of President Obama being our first black president has been suppressed in the public forum, apparently, judging from the stark disparity between what Whites and non-Whites think of Obama's performance.

In my view and knowledge of statistics, the fact that President Obama is black and only 35% of Whites think he is doing a good job while 72% of non-Whites (not just Blacks who comprise about 13% the U.S. population) think he has done a good job speaks volumns.

Update - 8/27/2011

MANY THINGS HAVE CHANGED in the several months since I last laid pen to this hub. From where I sit, Obama's accomplishments increased yet his poll numbers plummet; oh well, you can't have your cake and eat it to, they say.

  • Obama wanted a clean debt ceiling increase to pay for past obligations and prevent risking America's credit while putting the fight for spending cuts and tax changes where it belongs; in the debate for the 2012 budget
  • The Conservatives wanted to continue fulfilling their public pledge to destroy Obama's Presidency and decided to risk America's credit rating by demanding, until the very last possible second, that the deficit be balanced by putting the country into another recession through cutting so much in spending without increasing revenue, that was the only possible outcome.
  • The result was that Obama basically got what he wanted; an almost clean increase in the debt ceiling with spending cuts that would have been agreed to in the budget cutting exercise to follow anyway. The Republicans got what they wanted; a damaged Obama because their tactics caused America to have its credit rating downgraded for the first time in history and, as the Conservatives well know, while they may take some flak for causing it, it will be the President, his fault or not, who will catch the brunt of the public ire; Obama's poll numbers went down.

The Lybian Rebels finally gained the upper hand in Lybia. They haven't found Ghadaffi yet, but it is only a matter of time. While I doubt Obama's poll numbers will go down from this, I also doubt they will go up even though this outcome, I feel, is a direct result of his policy.

  • Obama orchestrated the international isolation of Qaddafi
  • Obama knew America could not determine the outcome; he also knew America could not afford direct involvement; he also knew we could not be involved; he also knew this was more a European issue; he also knew they couldn't do it on their own nor did they want to; and finally he knew it was damn well time they, the Europeans finally took some responsibilities.
  • All of the above drove Obama's "lead from behind" policy for which he has been roundly criticized from the left and the right, but nevertheless, was exactly the right thing to do.
  • NATO and the Europeans finally did take ownership of something, after America set the stage. And, after some initial stumbling, did, with the US helping, a very credible job in preparing the way for the opposition to coalesce, organize, train, equip, then counterattack in coordination with NATO. Why people and politicians thought this can happen in 30 or 60 days is beyond me. These are the same people and politicians,of course, who thought the American Revolution or American Civil War would be over in a couple of month as well, don't you know.
  • Obama's policy obtained the desired outcome at minimal cost both in American treasure and lives. For this, he will get next to no credit; yet the ramifications may be profound when we look down the road to Syria and Iran.

President Obama has learned well from the Bush Katrina debacle. He and FEMA have been well out in front, despite the protestations of Rep. Ron Paul, of Hurricane Irene and even took time to react properly to that little 5.9 jolt felt in Washington D.C. Even here, I don't think Obama's numbers will go up, but I do think it may stop his momentum downward.

Amid all of the tragedy, there may be a silver lining for Obama, for a while. Killing #2 in the al-Qaida hierarchy helps plus, we are coming out of the Summer doldrums for the stock market; all good things for the President. There is that whale in the room though, the Congressional budget super committee, just looming out there ready to send his numbers spiraling downward once again.

Update - 8/27/2012

A YEAR HAS PASSED and it is less than three months before the November 2012 Presidential elections. The Congressional Super Committee failed because Conservatives refused to give a millimeter on the question of tax increases on the rich. There were several reasonable options presented from outside experts and both sides appeared to give them short shrift. Nevertheless, Conservatives got something else to blame Obama for, to whit: their failure to get the job done.

President Obama gave the order to revitalize the hunt for Osama bin Laden, terrorists, and terrorism outside the Iraq theater from a moribund Bush program. This has led to the destruction of 90% of al-Qaida's top leadership. He also gave the order to proceed with the mission to capture or kill bin Laden when they finally hunted him down only to be roundly criticized and ridiculed by Conservatives who don't know what they are talking about.

In the months following my last update, President Obama put forward a multitude of job creation programs through the Senate, none of which made it passed the Conservative abuse of the filibuster. His only successes have been an effective use of the Executive Order to implement programs not needing Congressional approval; again accompanied by more howls of outrage by Conservatives over a common presidential practice. Fortunately, the criticizm was short-lived.

© 2011 My Esoteric

More by this Author


Comments 40 comments

Ken Thibado profile image

Ken Thibado 5 years ago from Utica

I kinda find polling to be off kilter from what reality is. I understand the need for a gauge, but our reliance on poll numbers is too "extreme".

However, I think poll numbers are fine for you and I. It's when politicians use them to decide a next move that makes me cringe.

Understanding where your electorate stands on an issue isn't the same as leading. Leadership isn't always about smiles.

Interesting stuff.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Right you are Ken, thanks for visiting.


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago

A good case. The way numbers poll show some pretty large swings in the last couple of years, and I'd guess that this will continue. And if there continues to be big swings, my thoughts would be that the swings themselves should be of concern - whoever anyone supports.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for visiting again Sembj. Interesting thought. I wonder if the swings as anything to do with one choice being at the extreme of American political thought and the other, while being more representative of the degrees of the political spectrum, has a leadership that is politically inept and a left wing that is as prone to throw the baby-out-with-the-bath-water as is their Conservative counterparts rather than get their way through slow steady gains.


Mr Tindle profile image

Mr Tindle 5 years ago

My Esoteric,

Obama had a golden opportunity. The public was ripe for real change. He let most people down I think. Obama has quite simply been more of the same, just with some variation, I think. Wars still going, Wall Street still influencing economic policy, and entitlements still growing. Unfortunately little has changed.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Mr. Tindle, Thank you for your comment. I agree and disagree with you. I feel very let down in the way the Democrats, in general, and President Obama, in particular, have handled themselves; especially in regard to health care reform and strategic planning.

In the former case, Obama let things get out of control by trying not to fall into Clinton's trap; he went to far and the inability of the Democrats (House mainly) to find common ground led to the slow-motion disaster we watched unfold leading ultimately to a slightly weaker bill than at least I would have wanted. (I wanted a public option like the federal workers have.)

The other is having not gotten together with his colleagues on the Hill and laid out a doable plan that they could realize over years in power rather than the one year grab the liberal side seemed to want. Those are the reasons the Conservatives have the House. Those, I believe, are the reasons they didn't focus more visibly on jobs (because focus they did, they just hid it).

Unfortunately, Wall Street will always influences policy. It has since the early 1800s and it always will. It wasn't until around 1932 that any constraint was put on them. That kept us out of big trouble until 2000. After that, those constraints were removed by the Bush administration (with a little help from the Carter administration forward) which led to the inevitable, predictable financial collapse we are recovering from now. It is just an unfortunate fact of life that you have to have Wall Street in there, you can't live without them; you just need to regulate them. Obama spent the first two years using his bully-pulpit to castrate Wall Street and it didn't work. Now, I think he might be trying the opposite approach.

As to success or failure, for me at least, I need to look at where he started and look at where we are now. I can only think of three Presidents who started in a worse position than President Obama did, George Washington, John Adams, and Andrew Johnson.

What President Obama chose to take on and improve was a country that was 1) in the middle of three wars, only one, the wrong one, being fought on a full-time basis, a country, 2)despised by most of the world because of the holier-than-thou, arrogant patina it had assumed for the previous eight years, 3) facing a growing external and internal terrorist threat, 4) about to enter the first Depression since 1929 if something wasn't done quick, and 5) about to see 16 million Americans or lose their jobs (20% unemployment) if the right fix wasn't put into place.

Where are we now because of President Obama's policies? 1) One war is essentially over, seemingly with a good outcome; 2) We are finally focusing on the real enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and starting up what Bush should not have stopped 10 years ago, this needs to be seen through to its conclusion or you will have, in my mind, another 9/11; 3) a stepped--up war on terrorism; 4) an America that is in the process of gaining its respectability back; 5) a Depression that didn't happen that would have if left up to the Conservatives and an economy that has been growing for 2 and half years; and 6) job losses limited to 8 million Americans of which over a million have gotten them back.

That is success, to me anyway.


Sembj profile image

Sembj 5 years ago

When people are highly critical of Obama, I think they should pause to think about the difficulties facing his office when he took over. Most of Obama's big problems have not been of his making, he inherited them although he has had to shoulder full responsibility, fairly or unfairly, after two years in office. It's good that you remind us so well in your responses and article about these challenges. Also, your article does suggest that many people, including 21% of conservatives, must well recognize these challenges when they were surveyed.

I wonder at the sanguine view most take about Iraq,though, since a lot can go very wrong - still.

Afghanistan is even more troubling as is the impact on Pakistani people in the boarder regions, since history suggests that military campaigns have not gone well for foreigners for centuries in these regions.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

MOst people are sheep and polls are just statistics that can be manipulated. In your poll there is no measure for success or failure so it is vague and ambiguous.

Rather it would be more meaningful to ask the question what has President Obama accomplished for the people and the country that is a solution or a benefit to the country and the people.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I agree with your critique on my poll, OD but given that the whopping 11 votes that I have garnered so far is my all time high for polling on the Hub, you might understand why I don't go for anything more complex.

However, the poll that I talk about was and, as you point out, it was much more interesting and fruitful.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

My Esoteric

I totally understand your enthusiasm on getting 11 votes, as so many of my polls have been 0 votes.

I don't understand why hubbers, many of whom have their own polls can't just tick a box, even out of sympathy.

In general I dislike media polls for the reason that they are out of context and limited to a few who even respond.

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I don't either, I am an enthusiasitc poll taker, OD, I just love sharing my opinion, doesn't everybody? lol.


Terry.Hirneisen profile image

Terry.Hirneisen 5 years ago from Shenandoah Valley

I wrote a little piece on Newt you might like. I think 2012 will be a landslide for Obama. The jerk in Wisconsin helped him by getting people awake.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the comment Terry. Got to go back and find the hub on Newt. Just read the one on Tea Baggers. I sure hope people are getting a clue now!


tom hellert profile image

tom hellert 5 years ago from home

M,

Me,

"When people are highly critical of Obama, I think they should pause to think about the difficulties facing his office when he took over."- Sembj

BOO HOO- BooHoo -- waaahhhh the country is going wrong blame it on bush- Boo hoo - "I am barrack- BOOHOO- Bush left me 4% unemployment..and i turned it into 12 % BOOWHOO WWAAAHHH I AM BHO NOTHING IS MY FAULT AFTER ALMOST # YEARS WWWWAAAAHHHHH I inheireted a recession- I tuRNED INTO A DEPRESSION and I am not going to do anything to help it WWWAAAHHH

I'll just CRY LIKE THE SPOILED LITTLE IVY LEAGUE FOREIGNER THAT I AM WWWWWAAAAAHHHH its all W's fault.....

BOo HOO-

HEy Barrack.... row A SET HUH....Ya freAkIN CRYBABY

Ii am sick of him- crying about a situation he has done NOTHING TO FIX... so all you liberals and union slimebags- 9 mainly union officials) look at the polls look at Wisconsin Loook at what happened and what will happen in Congress.....We are on to your AFLCIO union- pals.. So why dont you whinny liberal go back to your holes and leave us Americans who don't want ObamaSocialism alone....

TH


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Wow, Interesting, Terry H. Very well reasoned and researched, lots of supporting, unemotional facts; too bad none of them agree with the reality of January 2009 in good ole US of A.

Let's see,

you said when Bush left office in January 2009, unemployment was 4% - sorry, WRONG. It was 4% when Bush TOOK office in 2001 and was accelerating past 7.8% in January 2009. Obama managed to cap it at a little over 10% later that year, not the 12% you claim.

You said Obama inherited a Recession and turned it into a Depression, - sorry WRONG again. You have it backwards. Bush's financial policy nearly drove the economy into a Depression. The only reasons it didn't go there and just remained a Recession is because of Bush's TARP and Obama's Stimulus.

I assume the Wisconsin polls you are talking about concern support for or against the governor busting the public unions. If so, sorry, WRONG once more. If memory serves, only about 30% of Wisconsin citizens supported what the Governor did.

I wish John Adams, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln among many others were still alive to hear you refer to them as unAmerican liberals. I wonder what they would say?

But, one thing I am certain of, if you had lived in the 1790s, you would have voted against the ratification of that most liberal, socialistic of documents of its day, the Constitution of the United States.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Mr Esoteric

The problem with numbers is that they can be manipulated and misused, but the bottom line here is that the country has not recovered from the eoonomic meltdown of 2008.

You really can't use post 911 for any kind of comparison with the pre 911 no war years.

Obama and his congress spent their two years working for gay rights and Obama care, when they should have been working on the economy, reliance on foreign oil, and anything else.

If President Bush II had done what Obama is doing in Libya, everyone would have blamed him and not given him reasonable doubt as to his actions. But when a democrat does something like that, it seems to be OK.

The media no longer features the US body count in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the lack of progress in both of the countries.

The list goes on, but the results are clear. The country is in bad shape and it is not getting any better. With the 2012 presidential election on the horizon, neither Congress or the President are working hard on anything other than blaming the other party once again for the problems of the country.

my opinion ~:}


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Long time, no see Opinion Duck. Actually, I sort of did that for a living with one of my lives in the government as a cost analyst. When dealing with empirical data, sets of numbers, you can create things called dummy variables, that represent the event, 9/11 in this case. When dealing with information where you have to use less rigorous methods, there are other ways to factor in the effect shock events such as 9/11. It is done quite often.

It seems to me Obama got roundly critisized for ignoring gay rights until the last quarter of 2010; while I can't argue with you about Obamacare, he spent way too much time letting the Democrats futz around with it and lost some of his focus on jobs.

As I have mentioned or implied in several other hubs, no president has turned around a good recession, let alone an almost depression, in less than two years. Compared to previous economic downturns of this magnitude, Obama is doing extrordinarily well. One will never know what would have happened if McCain and the Republicans had won in 2008, but when I look at Japan's response to their current nuclear reactor debacle, I think I have some idea.


Terry.Hirneisen profile image

Terry.Hirneisen 5 years ago from Shenandoah Valley

I think you meant TOM H and not Terry H. I did not say those things.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

Mr. Esoteric

The only thing that I really disagree with your last comment is that I don't think Obama is doing well at all.

As you might remember from our previous discussions, I think that Congress is inept, ocrrupt and not effective for the people.

They proved that by being blindsided in 2008 about the economy. They either knew it was going to meltdown and they hoped it could wait until after the election, or they just didn't have a clue.

In either case they are the problem and not the solution.

No Congress and or president has done well with the economy. The big burst in the economy that we did see were created artificially and when they went bust, they went hard. The big ones started with the Dot Com....

I don't believe that you can compare the 1929 economic collapse with the economic meltdown in 2008.

The reason is that in 1929 we had it all in the country. WWII finally brought the country out of the depression.

Today, the US is no longer a manufacturing giant, and most of the goods that we get are manufactured outside the country. We went from a Super Industrial Nation to a Service Oriented Nation.

We are still dependent on foreign oil, even after two oil crises in the 1970s.

We have been at war since our invasion of Iraq, and unlike WWII this war did not help our economy, it hurt it.

So none of the criteria of the 1929 recovery exists today. So there is really no way to compare the two.

TARP and the Stimulus Bill were total failures for restoring the economy and getting back the jobs that were lost.

Obamacare was this century's SS both of which were created during economic lows, by Democrats in Congress and the Executive Office.

Today, the politicians are blaming the people that were forced to pay the SS TAX because they are retiring, and the Congress for the last fifty years has been spending the trust fund money that had a huge surplus.

At the same time, no matter how bad the economy we have to guarantee defined benefit pensions for the government employees. The size and scope of the government is out of control and very costly, but while the private sector shrinks, the government grows.

My point is that the US no longer has the resources to make an economic comeback.

Our jobs are in other countries, and the price of oil and gasoline is too expensive. This will increase the price of all the goods and services. Planes, trains, trucks, automobiles etc. now have increased overhead.

Two years after the economic meltdown, and the government and President Obama have done nothing to wean us off foreign oil.

The financial industry is still out of control, and investment speculation using computers instead of humans needs to be reigned in because it is out of control.

The 1929 Stock Market Crashed because of no margin control, today we have that but we have a new problem with computers doing spot investing.

Anyway, nice to converse with you once again.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

My sincere apologies Terry H, I DEFINITELY meant TOM H and NOT you, who, I believe have rather contrary views of those of Mr. Hellert.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Yep, we more or less agree at this point OD, save how effective TARP and the Stimulus, there we are 180 degrees appart. BTW, on TARP, the CBO is now saying we are slightly in the black, making money, on the part where we kept the major banks afloat, to the tune of about $13 billion. The rest, AIG and auto, they say will still cost us.

As to comparing depressions, I am getting closer to reviewing the 1929 Depression in my hub on recessions.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

My Esoteric

Yes, if we could only see eye to eye on the TARP and the Stimulus.

I look at the results, it doesn't mean anything that we even get in the black on TARP. Neither TARP nor the Stimuluss helped recover the economy or got the lost jobs back.

The final industry was saved, the corrupt and inept got bonuses and their companies are now able to continue their previous path.

The people however didn't really get the money that was given to the banks to loan to the people. In fact, the banks kept the money close to their vaults.

Freddie and Fannie the main contributors to the sham home loans were even excluded by congress from the financial reform.

The bottom line is that the economy and the jobs lost won't be coming back. Spot investing needs to be put in check. Millions are made in the flick of a couple of cpu cycles. This isn't investing, it is harvesting.

The oil speculation needs a grounding, over a least a hysteresis to shorten the tail of the long tail cats in the room full of rocking chairs.

It will be interesting to see how you can compare the 1929 with the 2008 economy as the variables and constants in both cases is really different.

Looking forward to reading it.

~:}


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 5 years ago

financial industry


colca294cola profile image

colca294cola 5 years ago

Good read.


Pat 4 years ago

Measuring success as a President has much more to do with the nation than who, or how many, are served during an administration. America expects that some will be served, and some will not be served because of the widely variable self interests that America represents. Presidents cannot be all things to all people, nor does America want them to be that vision of a monarch or god!

Such language is alien to America, as a democracy, and anyone who promises it should be suspect for that reason.

By far, popular judgment of a President in his leadership skills and approach to government and its public of what he can do to alleviate the barriers to trade (without giving away the store), or allowing it to be stolen, distorted, or harmed - is by far, the best judge of character required for President. Most of the rest is mere public relations to confirm that each citizen is a valued citizen, and that citizenship counts for all of the things which the Constitution obligates a President or a Congress to do, by oath.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Great comment, Pat. Thanks for coming by, reading and leaving your thoughts.


Kathleen 4 years ago

What a bogus poll!! Absolutely no reflection of the average American.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Hey Hubbers, apparently you aren't average Americans.


john000 profile image

john000 2 years ago from Superior, Arizona

We have far too many entities willing to monkey with data for financial gain.

One needs to observe the economy at the local level very carefully, read a lot of economic news from around the country, and form a new way of analyzing without stats.

I think it can be done.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading and commenting. It also reminded me to see if there is new info available to update the Hub with.

Unfortunately, it is too easy, even under the conditions you suggest, to overlook important relationships. Thomas Piketty's 2014 book "Capital in the 21st Century is a case in point.

Much policy was made based on economic theory derived from data taken over too short a period of time, and wrong decisions were made. Karl Marx, while using some statistics primarily used your method and also got it wrong, again for 1) lack of data, 2) misuse of data, 3) not using available data, 4) bias, and 5) generally underdeveloped understanding of economic theory at the time (not just Marx).


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 2 months ago from Florida

Was Obama a failure for America's best interests and American Workers?

Yes, I believe he was. The policies pursued, the trade agreements put in place, and the allowance for many millions of immigrants to enter into our country illegally and legally, will all work towards lowering wages and jobs here in America.

Was Obama successful BY HIS OWN STANDARDS and making progress towards his own goals and agendas?

Yes, I believe he had significant success, much of which will bear fruit in the not too distant future. Much of what he has worked to impact has gone on without fanfare, or behind the scenes, changes which will not have impact until he is out of office... much like Obamacare had no impact until after the 2012 election.

What his goals were, read his book "Dreams from my father" consider some of his early pre-Presidential speeches, and that should give you plenty of ideas on what they were.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, how much do you understand about economics? If you did, you would know that there are only two things that grow economies in the long-run; population growth and technology growth. Both determine increasing productivity "which is what makes GDP and therefore economies grow".

Here is a fact you many not know ... the American's birth rate is such that the population is growing at too low a rate to sustain growth anymore. All things being equal, including technology growth, productive MUST decrease (it is a mathematical certainty). Which means the economy will decline.

So, how do you counteract substandard population growth? There are only three ways; 1) Increase birthrates to a sustainable level, 2) increase technology growth beyond its historic norms for very long period of time, or 3) increase immigration. That is the long-winded explanation why your statement that Obama's "allowance for many millions of immigrants to enter into our country illegally and legally, will all work towards lowering wages and jobs here in America." is totally wrong.

I for one think the TPP is a great idea, more trade means more growth, period. It may mean a redistribution of the labor force from one type of job or another but in the long-run NAFTA has, and TPP will increase jobs. All you have to look employment levels when NAFTA passed and employment levels to, normalize for population growth, and you end up with a net increase in jobs.

So, how you can say " Obama a failure for America's best interests and American Workers"?

As to his goals, I can look at Politifacts Obamameter which keeps a running account of Promises Made and Promises Kept or Partly Kept. You will that in face of an unprecedented opposition who promised America that they wouldn't let PBO keep even ONE promise, he has managed to keep 70% of them (6% more are In the Works and another 6% are not rated. He only broke, regardless of the reason, 22%.

How can you call that a failure.

BUT, his Greatest Achievement, the one that will keep in the history books as one America's greatest Presidents, is stopping the economy from falling into a deep Depression, despite the GOP's best effort to stop him. Almost all economists think that was where we were heading, President Bush finally understood that was what was happening on his watch, and the rest of the world who understand economics knew that is what was going to happen unless something was done.

And Obama did it.

No, he is not a failure.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 2 months ago from Florida

Well lets see the first three paragraphs you wrote are total bunk.

It is as simple as supply and demand, the reason why today people make less money/salary doing a job today that they did in 1986 is because there are 10 people who will fill that job at minimum wage, and there are 4 more illegals willing to do it who do fill it for less than minimum wage, if the company hiring them can get away with it.

Jobs that move to Mexico or China or India are jobs that could (and were) done here... but they can hire people to do those jobs for 2 dollars and hour there, where in America it costs the company 20 dollars an hour.

Now those companies would still make money if they kept those jobs here in America, and they would still make money if they paid someone 20 dollars rather than 10 dollars... they would just make a little less money, or would have to charge a little more for their product.

Anyone who buys the argument that bringing in immigrants to fill jobs here in America, or shipping jobs to foreign nations, helps wages and helps Americans find work is a complete fool not worth discussing the topic with... unless they are a child needing to be educated on the subject.

You are not a fool, I have read plenty of your material, therefore you are either trying to convince me (or other readers) of the 'Party Rhetoric' that supposedly justifies the insane policy of unchecked immigration and imported refugees by the tens of thousands, or you've become so entrenched into your chosen party affiliation to believe any and all rhetoric they feed you.

As for the Promises kept despite promised opposition... what opposition? You mean the verbal show the "opposing party" mentioned, you mean the worthless political rhetoric spouted and quoted in the papers?

It was a nice show, it duped a lot of people, and the 'left' love to mention it, but it never materialized until this election year... and even now it is just a farce, a political show put on until the election is over in a couple of months.

The Republicans, conservatives, Nazis, whatever you want to label them did nothing to stop Obama... they did nothing to do away with Obamacare despite the wave of political upheaval in the 2010 and 2014 elections to do away with it. They did nothing to change his budgets, in fact they gave him more than he asked for every time... which is why we are twenty trillion in debt.

If they actually stopped any of Obama's efforts, to allow illegals to remain, to un-fund the social/welfare support they received, to undo any of his Clean Air Act, Carbon Pollution policy, WTO, TPP... anything?

Could you generate a list of things they stopped Obama from doing?

I would like to see it. Heck last thing that looked like it might be stopped Ryan went out of his way to support and vote for.

There hasn't been any opposition to anything in Washington of significance where it comes to how it effects jobs and our economy in a long long time.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Demand is driven by population, more population, more demand and vice-versa. More demand drives more supply. More supply drives jobs up. More jobs, past a certain point, drive wages up. We are finally seeing that now, there are NOT enough people willing to work to fill job openings therefore wages started rising this year. You notice WHO the population is doesn't enter into theses long established economic realities.

Now add in the real world ... there aren't enough natural born American immigrants, meaning everybody born in America save the Native Americans, to fill the job openings; it has been that way for decades, if not longer. I am not going to take the time to do the math, because the answer is obvious, but in 2014 there were about 5 million job openings and there were about 40 million legal and 10 million illegal immigrants.

Take those 50 million people out of the equation what happens? 80% of those (60% of native born) are at working age. Assume the same participation rate of 63% then that means 25 million legal and illegal immigrants have jobs. Remove them, then there are 30 million job openings. BUT there are only 11 million native and foreign born people looking for who would take a job if one was offered to fill those jobs.

That is impossible, of course, so what happens ... two things, highly inflation in wages and then prices; ultimately decrease in supply because businesses can't find ANYBODY to work for them, so they outsource or close.

Now, one of my degrees is in Cost and Economic Analysis, what's yours?

For things GOP stopped look at bottom of hub.

Tell me, why is one of the insults hurled by Ds at Obama is "Deporter-in-Chief"?

Tell me, why is unemployment (including part-time jobs) approaching record lows while GDP has hit record highs if all of those jobs which went overseas weren't replaced by MORE jobs here?? You are buying in to Propaganda John, without analyzing the veracity of it.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 2 months ago from Florida

I (obviously) disagree with the whole concept you have over population, more population more demand does not equate. When the population is 'home grown' perhaps there is some truth to that.

When the millions being infused into the system are non-English speaking, non-educated, then they are a burden to an already overwhelmed social system, school system. etc. ... we have approximately 100 million American citizens of working age that do not work, that are supported by the government in one capacity or another.

So every job that is done by an illegal immigrant for 5 dollars an hour, almost certainly would be done by an American for 10 or more dollars an hour... but companies don't want that, lobbyists fight against that, etc.

For companies, for international corporations, for foreign nations, the road we have been on for about 25 years now (since NAFTA) is great... for the American worker (American citizens) it is a travesty.

This tragic course is now effecting highly educated workers, not just uneducated Americans... in the past this was targeting Toll Bros construction workers and Stop&Shop shelf stockers, now with the worker-visas (H1-B/L-1)allowing companies like Disney to replace American workers with foreign workers NOT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONE TO DO THE JOBS but because it saves this Trillion Dollar Corporation an extra buck or two.

These policies are essentially Treason against the American people, it is simple as that, they favor those corporations/lobbyists that line their pockets... Washington is a cesspool of corruption where being the highest bidder, with the most politicians on your payroll, gets you what you want no matter how hurtful to the American economy or American people it is.

I appreciate that you are educated, it shows in your articles and responses, I do not deny that were we to sit down and discuss things I would likely learn something.

But that does not make my assessment of the situation wrong, I have met people far more educated than myself that had absolutely no common sense, and could not figure out a thing for themselves... common sense cannot be taught, and education comes in all shapes and sizes, I have been fortunate in my lifetime to see many places, and meet and discuss many topics with some highly respected minds of our time.

When I was 16 I was a guest in a private dinner for Rep. Moore a local politician, one of the people in attendance that night was Ted Kennedy who was kind enough to spend a part of the evening discussing various topics with a teenager who knew next to nothing. I served directly for men who attained the highest levels of command in the Army, and during the biggest crisis of our lifetimes I was privy to all critical information coming out of the 18th ABC and Pentagon. I have sat in on panels headed by the Deputy Secretary of Energy, in short I have been around, and been involved in the world around me.

And somewhere along the way I attended a course or two in college, and acquired a job or two.

You may fully believe what you are saying... but a little common sense, a few years of real world experience, and a capable mind for math and some facts shreds the very notion that our current immigration policies are helpful to American workers or wages.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, come on, how can this statement of yours possibly make any logical sense "more population more demand does not equate."?? That is about as counter-intuitive as it gets. Are you serious trying to convince everyone that if one more person is born OR enters the country does not increase demand in anything? What are they going to do? Starve because they won't buy food; go naked because they won't buy clothes; die of thirst because they won't buy drinks? OR is someone else going to give up what they have so the baby or immigrant eats, drinks, and wears clothes ... thereby holding demand constant.

Please describe to me how that world can possibly work.

It is NOT what I personally believe, Ken, it is what I have been taught and have been trained to know is fact. What school of economics says that isn't true?


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 2 months ago from Florida

I am advocating for American workers and wages.

Explain to me how 10,000 Syrian refugees brought into our country this week improves the economy? Improves wages and jobs available for American workers?

Explain to me how 500 workers brought in by Disney on H1-B visas to replace American workers already doing those jobs helps wages, helps employ Americans?

Explain to me how Tyson using illegal immigrants to process its chicken help American workers?

I understand how that helps Tyson and Disney make more money for its shareholders. But how does it help American workers get jobs and higher wages?

It doesn't. There is LESS demand for American workers because companies big and small have the freedom to take on foreign workers either through a variety of government supported programs like H1-B or because they can hire readily available illegal immigrants or migrant workers.

That drives wages down, and the number consistenly unemployed up.

People are living it and seeing it every day, it is what is driving the growing unrest across the board, educated and uneducated with Washington.

The allowance for uneducated and untrained labor into the country is one thing, the allowance for 'educated' workers to come in and take already filled American positions on worker visas is another thing all together... America has been betrayed by its politicians in Washington, and more and more of America is waking up to this realization every day.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"I am advocating for American workers and wages." - So am I. But to answer the rest of your question. Do you think only in short-term results or the results over the long-term?

Bringing in 10,000 refugees is a humanitarian policy, not an economic one. But, for the sake of argument, let's say they stay here permanently. It makes no difference if they start working productively (which is the normal course of affairs, more so, by the way, than native born Americans studies show) or become wards of the state.

What are they going to require? Food and shelter, at very minimum. Where does food and houses for 10,000 people come from, out of your and my mouth? Of course not, it becomes a demand on the supply system which must be met by increasing production. How else can that material be provided??? Are the refugees bringing it with them? Not hardly; this additional demand must be procured from the marketplace.

Also to your Tyson rational. Multiple studies show illegal immigrants perform those jobs native born Americans REFUSE to take. So, those immigrant aren't taking ANY jobs away, they are filling a need. Tell me, how many red-blooded Americans do you know who would work as migrant farm workers?? (Yes, I know some do, but not nearly enough.) That is a fact of lie that doesn't fit into your pure principle view of the world.


Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 2 months ago from Florida

I got a good chuckle out of that "pure principle view of the world" I assure you your views come across just the same.

Your 'big picture' 'educated' perspective I have run across plenty, and as always these views fail more often than not when applied to real world situations... much like the TARP/ARRA money went to very few of the people it was supposed to help or support, I would know, I helped distribute some of it, and the waste was monumental.

So you think bringing in hundreds of thousands of imigrants, they are going to fill some workforce need, or their presence will create jobs? Because studies show that American born workers are unwilling to do these jobs, and do not have the same work ethic?

Again, this is where having spent years overseas seeing reality up close, does wonders that no amount of time cloistered up in a University learning whatever doctrine is being put forth at the time can do for me.

The bottom line is they are cheap labor, to help businesses drive down wages and increase profits. H1-B drives down wages and jobs available to Americans. etc. etc. my points are not just valid, they are based in reality, not economic theory.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Sorry Ken, point me to some reliable studies that support your point of view. Bring me proof that immigrants drive down wages.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working