jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (21 posts)

It's the economy stupid!

  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago

    Now that all three presidential and one vice-presidential debates are history,  the  quintessential question begs to be answered. Are we better off economically compared to 4 years ago when Pres. Obama assumed the reins of  the presidency? If some of us answers yes, then  Obama is your man. If however, most of us are not as economically secure, then its time to  send Obama to pasture, and have Romney get a whack at it.

    During last nights debate Obama tried mightily to  put Romney in a corner, but Romney was able to pivot out of that by  truthfully saying that if the United States is economically weak (as what  has happened during Obama's 4 years in office), then its foreign policy  positions are also weak. Obama sheepishly agreed to that, then  sheepishly  stated that the economy under his watch has become stronger. Obama's delusions persist despite the facts to the contrary.

    Granted that he found the economy in a ditch (after 8 years of  the drunken spending under Pres. Bush), Obama, with his unrelenting and incomprehensible spending, just pushed that economy in the ditch further down to a raging river, and now it is drowning in a  sea or red... i.e 16 trillion to be exact, 6 of which were incurred during Obama's 4 years in office.

    1. eternals3ptember profile image61
      eternals3ptemberposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You realize "economy" doesnt equal "debt" and neither equal "employment"?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Measures of debt and employement are obviously  important factors in evaluating the strenght or weakness of a country's economy.  I specifically mentioned these two measures because these are the  most glaring examples of  why a lot of folks  have labeled Obama's , a failed presidency.

        It was  George W. Bush who started the ball rolling with his unhampered spending ( from a budget surplus to a budget deficit in 8 years), that the recession came into view. Of course there were multiple other factors that contributed to the recession and when several "big" banks  and Wall Street  investment  institutions were deemed "too big to fail", he bailed them out (with our taxpayer's money)...a policy that Obama continued  via bailing out GM/Chrysler. I submit that it would  have  been better policy to have allowed these mis-managed  companies to go through "managed" Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, instead of wasting billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers money that should have been better spent by doling those billions to small, local or regional banks that are in the business of giving loans to folks who might want to start a business of their own, or to expand their current businesses.

        Obama accelerated the rate of spending, and thus borrowing. The Federal Reserve could only print so much money without ultimately affecting the value of the dollar, and without  initiating inflation, that inevitably leads to higher interest rates.

        Jimmy Carter was a one term president , precisely because he did not manage the economy well and his foreign policy was a disaster. Two areas that the Obama presidency is also failing at.

    2. nightwork4 profile image61
      nightwork4posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      i have my own company and i have no debt. i'm thinking of buying another company that does the same work i do but they are in debt about $120,000.00. if i do buy this company, it will take me at least 3 years to even put a dent on the debt but for the first year or so i will end up spending around $60,000.00 to get things in order. you can't start out in debt and not go deeper to fix the problem Mr. Obama is doing what needs to be done but for reasons i can't even begin to fathom, some people are just too blind to understand this. wow.A. Vallarasa, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. literally, no idea.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this


        Kindly elucidate me on what Obama is doing "what needs to be done", that I am too blind or clueless to understand?

        And since as you said "I  have absolutely no idea what I am talking about", perhaps you could give me a tutorial on what it is that I should have an idea talking  about.

        BTW, like you I am also a  small business owner.

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Because of course it's automatically the President's fault. What an idiotic suggestion.

      And actually no, it's not just about the economy. It's also about not having nut cases in the Whitehouse who think they get to decide what a woman does with her body, the definition of 'marriage', who gets to vote etc. Even if Romney were an economic genius (he's far from it) I wouldn't want to see him running the country, just because of the loony party that he represents. Obama and the Dems are not Saints, but they seem to have fewer loonies. If Romney wins it would be an unmitigated disaster for the country, and potentially the world. I truly think Romney could blunder his way into WWIII.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @Don W

        Then you are in fact suggesting that Pres. Obama is an idiot for blaming Geroge Bush for the bad economy that he inherited from Bush in 2008. He continues to blame Bush for the  horrendously bad economy that the country has now,  even after 4 years of his  own bad  economic policies.

        Which leads me to this conclusion--that Obama has been good at only two things during his presidency: (1) blaming others for his failures, (2) enjoying the perks of the presidency... that Air Force 1 must be one really cool plane.

        Blundering into WWIII?  HHmmm now that is one looney idea.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am "in fact" suggesting no such thing. You said if most people are not economically secure, they should not vote for Obama. That assumes the economic difficulties of every individual is solely the fault of government, which is not the case. It also completely misses the fact that even if people are still suffering financial difficulties, those difficulties could have been even worse without the actions taken by the current administration to stop the bleed.

          And people's decision to vote for a candidate is not based solely on their economic policies. Their policies on gender equality, immigration, education, foreign policy etc. are all important factors that people use to make an informed choice. It's not just about the economy as you imply, although that's obviously an important factor.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image79
            A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your point is well taken... however I would  point out  that  your statement : "... those difficulties could have been even worse without the actions taken by the current administration...:" just does not cut it as a reason to give another 4 years to Obama to take a whack at the economy. Your  argument is at best, weak, at worse, another alibi for why those  difficulties have NOT  been eased, erased and eviscerated during Obama's  4 year tenure.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's not so much a weak argument, as a realistic one. Imagine you have been in an accident. You undergo hours of surgery to deal with the life threatening injuries you've sustained.  When you wake up you're told you wont be jumping around or playing football for a while, but you are on the mend and can now start the process of getting back to full strength. What you are doing is the equivalent of telling the medical team they are crap because they haven't gotten you back to full health immediately. In doing so you fail to recognise the enormity of the injuries you had, and the achievement it was in keeping you alive at all. 

              I don't believe four years is long enough to reverse the effects of the worst  financial crisis since the great depression, that was decades in the making. Some companies take longer than that to turn their fortunes around. The necessary immediate steps to prevent the economy going under were taken. Now the real work of recovery can begin. To do that, shock horror, yes the President needs more time. I'd like to give him the time he needs to finish the work he has started.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Don W:

                The record of other Presidents ( Reagan for instance) dealing with similar dire economic  straits they inherited from their predecessors, belie the validity of you argument. Reagan did not need 4 years to turn the economy around, and during re-election time, he won handily, Obama's anemic recovery is, I'm sure, will not result in a similar  scenarion, i,e. his re-election.

                1. tammybarnette profile image61
                  tammybarnetteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Lets remember however, that Reagan reduced the top tax rate from 70% to 50%, Corporations today do not need such help. And, let's please remember the Iran Contra Affair, and that Reagan gave weapons in order to free hostages, and not to mention this recession was closer to the Great Depression than the economy inherited by Reagan. The population is much larger, the baby boomers are aging through the social security system, and one of Reagan's great accomplishments was based on an industrial revolution that has since left for China...there is no comparison to the economy inherited by Reagan to that of Obama.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                    A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If I remember right, it was Barack Obama who, during the Democratic primaries before the 2008 election, stated  that Ronald Reagan was a "transformational president" in the way he invoked and provoked  the American people into accepting  his governing mantra " the government is not the solutuion, but the problem". He then systematically applied that  conservative principle to  his economic policies  that then  allowed the economy to grow at a heathly 8% annually.
                    It was therefore unconscionable for Obama to go the opposite way, via expanding  the role of government with his policy of tax and spend. The result of a very slow economic recovery is therefore not utterly unexpected. And that is what  the country has gone through the past 4 years.

            2. Mighty Mom profile image92
              Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You are aware, I'm sure, that there are countries around the world that are suffering under a global recession. Very few countries are actually thriving right now.
              So when you talk about people whose troubles have not magically been "eased, erased and eviscerated" in 4 years under Obama, are you accounting for that?
              We are clearly not an island. We do not have an independent economy.
              Or, are you expecting that Obama -- or whoever is our president -- should ease, erase and eviscerate all economically-caused human suffering around the world?

              1. A.Villarasa profile image79
                A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @Mighty MOm:

                Your formulation basically gives credence to the saying;" misery loves company". Just because other countries are  having economic difficulties do not mean that the USA shoud join them in their misery.

                I am a minimalist when it comes to presidential  perspicacity...which means I want  the president to be truthful and not hide behind false narratives, the blame game, and finger pointing... all things that Obama has become very good at during his 4 years as the tenant in the White House.

    4. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      With inflation accounted for Obama has actually REDUCED spending by 2.6% he has turned an unemployment which was rising faster than ever in American history and turned it into a situation where jobs are slowly being gained (with no reason to believe that trend will not continue) Obama has had a 70% growth in the stock market and has tripled our GDP growth rate.

      Economic failure it is not.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image79
        A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this


        A lot of folks would disagree with your last staement... and we will soon find out if the degree of disenchantment with Obama is deep and wide, come Nov. 6

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    This assumes that the President "causes" the economy, and that if one candidate makes it goes down the other will make it go up.

    I don't think either of these assumptions are correct.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image79
      A.Villarasaposted 3 years ago in reply to this


      Then you should  call Obama  on this one... since he has been blaming GW Bush for the bad economy ever since he assumed office in 2008.