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.
You realize "economy" doesnt equal "debt" and neither equal "employment"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You don't seem to be paying attention. Obama inherited the worst economic disaster since FDR took over from Hoover during the great depression. The last 17 months before he took office saw a 58% loss in the stock market, which was in fact worse than any 17 month period even during the great depression. There is no comparison.
Even so, looking at unemployment figures, it took Reagan 4 years to achieve an unemployment rate of 7.8%. It took another 2 years to achieve a rate below 7%. So 6 years altogether when conditions where not as bad as when Obama took office.
Obama had a much deeper hole than Reagan to climb out of, but he's doing it slowly but surely. Does he need more time to finish the job? Yes. Like Reagan let's make sure he gets 4 more years, so he can finish the job he's started.
During Obama's 4 years in office the unemployment rate has gone up instead of going down; he promised that he was going to cut the deficit in half, instead he has doubled it; he promised to cut the debt, instead he increased it by close to a 6 trillion dollars.
It is absolutely true that he found the economy in a ditch when he was elected in 2008, but, again, based on the factoids I mentioned above, I would make the argument, that instead of getting the economy out of that ditch, he pushed it further back, into a raging river, and it is now drowning in a sea of red ink.
I think most of us would say that the job that he has done does not deserve the 4 more years that your are so eager to give him.
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?
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.
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.
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.
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
The two recent Presidential and one vice-presidential debates have made it abundantly clear that Obama and Biden can not defend their indefensible 4 year record of bad economic and domestic/foreign policies....
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney said last week that Obama has a secret agenda for his second term. I'm wondering what that is. Romney did not say. Or is this the old psychological trick of projecting your fault on...
by AnnCee6 years ago
Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It's really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
There are some stinging indictments of both Romney and Obama in this sort of backhanded endorsement from the British "The Economist."What are your favorite/least favorite (or in the Queen's English, I suppose...
by Alexander A. Villarasa4 years ago
Now that we know Obama's foreign policy is in tatters... the economy barely resuscitable, and America adrift, a book that has just come out fully and accurately detailing the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.