PDA

View Full Version : Why the bad economy hasn't sunk Obama's chances



Soflasnapper
10-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Defying Gravity

The numbers say Obama should be losing. Here’s why he isn’t.

By Beth Reinhard, Major Garrett and Jim Tankersley

From the National Journal, shown as a single page, here. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/why-obama-is-defying-gravity-20120927)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama’s fortunes are rooted in voters’ dimming expectations for the economy and the federal government, and their apparent conclusion that the country’s current misery is not entirely the president’s fault. Polls show Americans appear resigned to an economic future only mildly better than the status quo. Their disgust with Washington has left them skeptical that anyone can lead the country out of the slog. “Voters are economically stressed and have been bludgeoned into numbness,” said GOP consultant Rob Collins, who serves on the board of the powerful conservative advocacy group Crossroads GPS.

That changing economic calculation leaps from voters’ tongues on a weekday morning at a Dunkin’ Donuts in the Northern Virginia battleground of Fairfax County. Mark Jacoby, a 39-year-old lawyer who lives in Clifton, says he doesn’t blame Obama exclusively for the sluggish economy. “I think it’s a combination of the president and the Congress not doing their jobs,” he says. “[George W.] Bush did give us a hangover with the two wars. It’s not like Obama started with a clean slate.”

John Vena, a 49-year-old lawyer, pauses for coffee before he takes his daughter, happily sipping chocolate milk, to school. “I blame Obama for not improving the economy the way he promised, but he did inherit a bad situation,” he says. “We may be in a place where there’s no solution. Maybe we have to get used to this slow, incremental growth.”</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The economy has grown, albeit at an uninspiring and historically behind-the-curve annual rate of 2 percent. About 150,000 additional workers per month have netted jobs. The private sector has replaced all the jobs it lost since Obama took office.

The recovery, however uninspiring, is a recovery. The economy isn’t contracting. Companies aren’t shedding more workers than they hire, and the unemployment rate isn’t rising.

Just as important, small rays of hope are appearing in sectors of the economy that voters notice most. Housing starts have steadily ticked up over the past 18 months. Home prices appear to have bottomed out nationwide around January and have been rising since. Foreclosures have slowed. In the past year, 1.3 million underwater homeowners who owed more than their homes were worth are now slightly above the surface. Small-business owners are reporting a mini-surge in plans to hire and invest, driven by rising hope that the economy is headed toward better days, according to the latest survey by the National Federation of Independent Business. Morgan Stanley has seen a big rise in its measure of corporate optimism. Consumer confidence rose for much of the past year, dipped in the spring, but then rose again in August, according to the University of Michigan. The unemployment rate for college graduates in August was just 4.1 percent; 6.6 percent for workers with some college experience. Both are statistically significant parts of Obama’s base. </div></div>

A lot more there, which see.

Gayle in MD
10-02-2012, 01:47 PM
It's still the Bush Recession, and some realize that without this president, it would be the Bush Depression right now!

As hard as Repiglicans tried to make it the Obama Depression, Obama, and the Democratic Majority, still managed to keep the impending Bush/Cheney/Blank check congress's Depression at bay.

It's a lot like the Republican created Acorn Voter fraud, lol, which turned out to be just another....

"The administration is fixing intelligence to fit the pollicy."

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

eg8r
10-02-2012, 01:54 PM
To be honest the media is not exactly very forthcoming when they talk about the economy.

Little to none of the media come out and tell people that this is the slowest recovery ever. The media is gets all excited about jobs created but usually more quiet about an up tick in UE. They don't bother to explain to even though there were new jobs in a current month those new jobs do not keep up with the number of new workers of eligible age.

eg8r &lt;~~~paraphrasing from something I had read over the weekend and couldn't remember everything

cushioncrawler
10-02-2012, 03:56 PM
All i see here iz krappynomix.
Krapp questions + krapp answers + krapp statistix + krapp thinking + krapp theory + krapp gridlock = krapp rezults.
mac.

LWW
10-03-2012, 03:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be honest the media is not exactly very forthcoming when they talk about the economy.

Little to none of the media come out and tell people that this is the slowest recovery ever. The media is gets all excited about jobs created but usually more quiet about an up tick in UE. They don't bother to explain to even though there were new jobs in a current month those new jobs do not keep up with the number of new workers of eligible age.

eg8r &lt;~~~paraphrasing from something I had read over the weekend and couldn't remember everything </div></div>

What's wrong with you ... we have been told the recession s over and we are in a boom.

Qtec
10-03-2012, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Little to none of the media come out and tell people that this is the slowest recovery ever. </div></div>

Once again you ignore the facts. You ignore the unprecedented disastrous economy that BUSH handed to Obama.
You ignore the fact that in the month Obama took office the USA LOST 800,000 jobs, in ONE month!

Find me one other POTUS that inherited a situation like Obama did and then we can compare.

Q

llotter
10-03-2012, 06:21 AM
I pretty agree with the notion the people have begun to accept a new norm that lacks the prosperity and opportunity of the past. It reminds me of what it must have been like in the Soviet Union with long lines and empty shelves and the sense of helplessness and bleakness of the future.

This dire view of the present and future is the inevitable consequence of fatally flawed concept of central planning. We have heard over and over how solutions will suddenly appear once Republicans and Democrats start working together but this is simply not facing reality.

eg8r
10-03-2012, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again you ignore the facts. You ignore the unprecedented disastrous economy that BUSH handed to Obama.
You ignore the fact that in the month Obama took office the USA LOST 800,000 jobs, in ONE month!</div></div>LOL, none of this has to do with what I posted. The quote you are referring to exactly was...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Little to none of the media come out and tell people that this is the slowest recovery ever. </div></div>The media is not telling the Americans what is really happening. They are jumping up and down over little things (new jobs for that month) but ignoring the more glaring problem (the new jobs did not keep up with the new eligible employees).

By hiding what is really happening the media is softening the blow to Obama. If Americans were hearing the true complete story they would not have a favorable view of Obama's ability to fix the issue.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 09:08 AM
This dire view of the present and future is the inevitable consequence of fatally flawed concept of <s>central planning</s> corporate capture and ownership of government. We have heard over and over how solutions will suddenly appear once Republicans and Democrats start working together but this is simply not facing reality.

I agree but as modified in the change above.

We have run an arms race against ourselves after the USSR dropped out of the race, and for reasons of corporate profit.

The cost of their last misadventure in military matters has now been pegged at $3 trillion. Did we have the $3 trillion to spend? No, we borrowed the whole amount.

Was it worth it? Since the unintended consequence (they might say, I'd say the intended consequence) is that now Iran has no counterweight in the region (actually a near-ally in Iraq's Shi'i'a government and majority population), and we have to have a war on Iran (they say).

And what will that cost? This country will have been lost as a republic because of the MIC that Eisenhower warned us of.

Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 09:19 AM
The recovery, however uninspiring, is a recovery. The economy isn’t contracting. Companies aren’t shedding more workers than they hire, and the unemployment rate isn’t rising.

Just as important, small rays of hope are appearing in sectors of the economy that voters notice most. Housing starts have steadily ticked up over the past 18 months. Home prices appear to have bottomed out nationwide around January and have been rising since. Foreclosures have slowed. In the past year, 1.3 million underwater homeowners who owed more than their homes were worth are now slightly above the surface. Small-business owners are reporting a mini-surge in plans to hire and invest, driven by rising hope that the economy is headed toward better days, according to the latest survey by the National Federation of Independent Business. Morgan Stanley has seen a big rise in its measure of corporate optimism. Consumer confidence rose for much of the past year, dipped in the spring, but then rose again in August, according to the University of Michigan. The unemployment rate for college graduates in August was just 4.1 percent; 6.6 percent for workers with some college experience. Both are statistically significant parts of Obama’s base.

Stock and mutual-fund holdings, often the basis of retirements savings, have grown in value from $9.1 trillion at the end of 2008 to $14.3 trillion in September, according to the Federal Reserve Board. Americans are saving more and are paying down credit-card debt, a process economists call “deleveraging.” Deutsche Bank economists wrote this month that household balance sheets have rebounded to their strongest levels in a decade. They calculated that household buying power is up “significantly” over the past year, thanks to rising home values. Taken together, they wrote, “these two developments are supportive of further modest gains in consumer spending and suggest household deleveraging is no longer a serious headwind to economic expansion.”

from the article cited

eg8r
10-03-2012, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Companies aren’t shedding more workers than they hire, and the unemployment rate isn’t rising.</div></div>This is not the whole picture. You are leaving out the fact that the companies are not hiring enough to keep up with new people entering the job market. And UE did just go up. By you continually quoting this is proof that you have no intention of accurately portraying what is really happening.


eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 11:40 AM
Generally, the economy IS hiring enough to keep up with entrance to the job market, and has been.

The increasing consumer confidence and business confidence numbers are coming from somewhere, and this piece itemizes a fair number of sectors that show the progress you deny. Even as the 'right track/wrong track' answer as to the economy remain majority 'wrong track,' the right track is gaining, as more people grow more confident.

Less people are underwater on their homes, and those still underwater have moved into the shallower end as to those amounts. People have been fairly aggressively deleveraging their debt, and their improved personal balance sheets allow for more consumer spending.

All these factoids are in the piece, and are accurate explanations for why even among those who say we're on the wrong track, some say they will be voting for Obama. And also why a plurality of people say they are better off, and with those who say they are the same, amount to over 50% of the response.

I'm trying to help you understand why 'the bad economy hasn't sunk O's chances,' as in the title of the OP, and you appear to claim it HAS, but without any evidence you are right.

eg8r
10-03-2012, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Less people are underwater on their homes, and those still underwater have moved into the shallower end as to those amounts.</div></div>This is also a misconception devised to fool the stupid (or the 47% Romney was talking about). Less people are underwater because record number people got out from underneath those mortgages through bankruptcy and refinancing NOT because the health of the industry as returned. By refinancing all they have done was add years and years of interest back into the note.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All these factoids are in the piece, and are accurate explanations for why even among those who say we're on the wrong track, some say they will be voting for Obama.</div></div>LOL, factoids are like statistics. You can make them say whatever you want them to say. Why aren't you bragging about another "factoid" like this is the slowest recovery in the history of the US? Hmm, doesn't sound so great but it is equally true. Why aren't you bragging about the "factoid" that the used home market is falsely elevated because banks are holding on to properties instead of releasing them and showing a true representation of the housing economy? Darn you don't seem to like all these factoids. The good thing for you is that 47% of Americans wouldn't understand these anyway.

Again, Obama isn't defying gravity, he is ignoring the truth. The ENTIRE truth.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-03-2012, 02:07 PM
Try to get your factoids correct. It's the slowest recovery post WW II. Because we haven't had any financial crisis type recessions since the Great Depression.

Just as the factoid that no president has been re-elected with over 8% UE is false unless you add the same disclaimer, 'post-WW II.' FDR was re-elected with far more than 8% UE.

Actually as to financial crisis type recessions, this is the second best recovery next to the Japanese experience, as to employment gains. (In the Japanese case, they just kept zombie jobs alive and didn't have a monstrous UE rate, even right afterwards.)

The factoids you seem to prefer are the reason this piece was written, as they are true, and yet, O seems in position to win, and is certainly not behind by 10% as one might assume he should be, given those very factoids. Unless you take the position of the unskewthepolls, and claim he IS behind by 11%, across the board.

Even Hannity doesn't buy that guy's rejuggling, and yesterday, admitted that in his opinion, O's up in most of the swing states (although he put him at +1 or +2 at the most).

Having rejected the theories mentioned here, which are based on facts, why is it that consumer confidence and business confidence is growing, and that the right/wrong track number is recovering? Hypnosis? The O administration is not that good at messaging to believe that.

Another explanatory factoid to consider:

When President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney meet in Denver tonight for the first of three debates, the conversation will almost certainly turn to Obama's economic performance in the White House. It is a subject on which opinions are neatly divided. According to a recent Esquire/Yahoo! News poll, 45 percent of Americans fault the president for mismanaging job creation.

A roughly equal number responded that Obama made the most of a bad economic situation, with 49 percent of the general population responding that the chief executive did "as well as he could." The poll results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points among the general population.

Obama has repeatedly argued that his predecessor is chiefly to blame for the recession, and a plurality of Americans agree: 26 percent of Americans blame George W. Bush for the current unemployment level. Another 22 percent blame Congress, while only 17 percent blamed the sitting president.

A report on an Esquire poll from Yahoo today.

So YES, many people have your view. But yes, MORE have another view. Why do they have that view? I've led you to the water but cannot make you drink.

cushioncrawler
10-03-2012, 04:01 PM
Theusofa will hav a choice.
KRAPPYNOMIX and Gridlock -- OR -- GRIDLOCK and krappynomix.

Down here we watch gridiron and baseball and usofa-politix.
Wouldnt miss it for quids.
mac.

The Dems are batting, Manual Labour iz on strike, the pitcher iz House Gridlock, Fili Buster calls time-out, and the fans are unemployed.

eg8r
10-03-2012, 08:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is the second best recovery next to the Japanese experience, as to employment gains.</div></div>You are an dreamer. This recovery has been slowing down every single year since it started. It is getting better at a slower rate. It is not getting better at an increasing rate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The factoids you seem to prefer are the reason this piece was written, as they are true, and yet, O seems in position to win</div></div>Not because he is defying gravity but actually because the media is not being fully truthful with the miserable performance of this President. Kind of like a wife going on with life as normal while the husband is dying under the weight of all the finances. He gets a 2% raise and tells his wife that great news but fails to tell her that the interest rate on their credit cards went up 1.9%. She goes on thinking things are getting better when in reality they might be but it is so miniscule it might actually start getting worse quicker than getting any better.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 09:39 AM
You'd have to look at the graph to see if I'm right or not in my characterization. Have you seen that graph? What about it is false, in your opinion?

I do not think people take media advice on how they feel about their own financial circumstances. And the people have been making their own opinions based on their own experience. You just think they are wrong.

Are you worse off now than 4 years ago? I've already mentioned I'm far better off.

Gayle in MD
10-04-2012, 09:54 AM
We are all better off in that we are no longer teetering on The Bush Depression.

BTW, do you recall the percentage in the top one percent, who are actually job creators?

I thought I read that it was only like 3%?

Additionally, I have read that the greatest waste and corruption anywhere in Government, is in the Defense Industry, right where Romney wants to waste more money!

G.

eg8r
10-04-2012, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you worse off now than 4 years ago? I've already mentioned I'm far better off. </div></div>Me personally, yes I am better off. However, across the board drop in $4300/year income is not better off.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 12:58 PM
That isn't actually across the board, as you may discover.

'Averages' do not mean everyone has that number, and mainly that would never be the case.

eg8r
10-04-2012, 02:03 PM
That was the average stated for middle class. I consider myself middle class and also stated I didn't have that dip in my pay so I am well aware that "averages" do not mean everyone. However considering the average is negative that means more people lost than gained and that means "not better now than 4 years ago".

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-04-2012, 05:22 PM
However considering the average is negative that means more people lost than gained and that means "not better now than 4 years ago".

That isn't really how averages work, of course.

With the stated 8.x % unemployment, 91.x % are working (among the stated workforce numbers). The 8.x% went from whatever they made at the time to $0.00, typically.

So the 91.x% could all make the same as before, or have cost of living increases (rarely, I know), or some have some raises even if most stay the same, and since roughly 100% of the 8.x% went from at least minimum wage to zero, the AVERAGE going down could reflect less than 10% going down, and the rest the same or up.

For instance, if there are 5 people in the workforce making various wages, and 4 keep their job and the same income, where one loses $20,000 in wages, the AVERAGE there went down $4,000 a person, although 80% of the people were not affected.

As you may have seen cited, for the people with a college degree, the UE is 4.x%. For the people with some college, that rate is 6.x%.