Obama's ratings

[lorene]

The news today said even though obie's team)dem's) seem ot be bailling out of politics quickly, the presidents approval ratings are still around fifty percent even with his agenda ratings falling fast sooooo...

Why has not this president been attack personally like the ones in the past would be by now had they failled to do....well...anything, in their first year of office as he has done?

Could it be because of race? Perhaps people will only say they do not like his agenda and not him because they are afraid of being called racist? Or is he as a persn really that likable that no matter how much he messes up or little he accomplishes, we still love him?

[Abraxas]

Worked very well for a very long time. During the most properous periods of American history

You mean like the '80s?

I said the most prosperous periods, not the most ruinous ones.

Arthur Laffer is a right wing source.

And you're a left-wing source. So what? Can we stick to facts? Which of Prof. Laffer's do you disagree with.

I start with disagreeing with the idea he has facts. What he has are interpretations of selectively chosen statistics.

He is not a credible one either, considering in 2006 he was trumpeting how our economic policy was on the right track and that the good times would keep on rolling.

Most people in 2006 didn't see it coming, did you? Here's what Barney Frank said when Bush tried to increase regulation:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Most people have no basis in or knowledge of economics. A good number of economists did, however, the supply side economists said otherwise and were, as usual, off the mark.

That's his opinion.

And as FDRs secretary of the Treasury, it should carry a lot more weight than we internet warriors.

We have hindsight, he didn't.

Let me just start off by saying the Cato Institute is even less credible than Arthur Laffer.

Your ad hominen objections don't constitute a debate. From Wikipedia:

The Institute's stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by striving "to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, lay public in questions of (public) policy and the proper role of government." Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

I never said they were Republican, just looney supply side economists who spent consideral effort defending theories history has shown do not work. Cato is one step up from the Von Mises Institute.

Points taken from the very next section in Wikipedia from the Reaganomics page:

Most of the key economic indicators that were better than before or after were middle of the road or poor when compared to the rest of the century.

To fight inflation he caused a recession 1982.

He inherited a recession. ?

He did, then he started a new one once it was finished.

Did FDR also cause the 1937 recession

Nope.

Real wages declined, so in fact, the poor and middle were not getting richer.

Income increased for all income groups.

Not real wages.

Consumer confidence soared because he convinced everyone to stop saving and start spending, a huge part of the current consumer debt state the US has become.

Reagan passed away years ago, and has nothing to do with our current crisis.[/QUOTE] Sadly, debt and bad economic policies don't.

We can quote articles at each other until the end of time, but the facts are the facts and the facts are Reagan was an economic trainwreck.

Reducing the misery index from 19.99% to 7.5% isn't a train wreck. For that, see Obama.

Yes, spending all your money and destroying your future can feel good when you are doing it, in particular when everything else is going right for you including brand new market sectors emerging and oil prices plummeting.

[Wyvern]

It did not worsen according to your sources since they say it was the worst in 1933.

What about the 1937 recession?

What about it? Sounds like you are trying to describe what is now called a double dip recession in which a small recovery is made initially followed by a downturn. Both the 1929 and 1937 recessions are part of what is now called the great depression. Trying to separate the two is like trying to separate the theory of evolution into micro and macro.

The connection between tax rates and job growth rates does not follow and to think that is the only factor in how jobs are created is simplistic at best

Again, your answering a point I never made. When did I say it was the only factor? Few economists would deny there is a link. More money needed to pay taxes means less money to hire people. Similarly, when the minimum wage and other employee benefits go up, fewer employees will be hired.

Tax rates are the only thing you have been talking about this entire time. Strangely the period of greatest job growth and economic properity happened during a period of very high taxation which goes counter to your argument, while on the other hand the two periods with the lowest levels of taxes both led directly into a recession.

It is ironic to see Obama complain about companies moving overseas when it is his policies they are fleeing, i.e. more taxes and regulation.

Exactly what corporate tax policies has Obama enacted in his year in office? I'm old enough to remember presidents have been complaining about this for decades.

If you actually wanted to give a break to the job creators you would be giving those tax breaks to the middle class. The great majority of jobs are created from small businesses owned by middle class people, not corporations and not rich people.

Many of these middle class job creators are incorporated and are 'rich' by Obama's definition, i.e. making $250,000+. In the course of my job I meet many of these people. They often live in modest houses and drive modest cars, save and invest wisely. Yet now the government makes these people who provide jobs, goods and services (unlike government) to be the villain.

[/quote]
The government provides many jobs, goods and services and I don't recall the government villainizing anyone. The definition of rich is not Obama's, it is Bush's also if they are incorporated then they don't need to worry about personal tax rates and your argument is moot.
If it's any consolation I agree that the tax system needs serious reform.

[East of Eden]

The government provides many jobs, goods and services

The government doesn't produce anything. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't result in any net gain. It's like taking water from the deep end of the swimming pool and putting it in the shallow end in an attempt to raise the water level. When govenment takes money from businesses in the form of taxation to 'create jobs' for example, those businesses have less money to hire people.

[East of Eden]

Worked very well for a very long time. During the most properous periods of American history

You mean like the '80s?

I said the most prosperous periods, not the most ruinous ones.

Arthur Laffer is a right wing source.

And you're a left-wing source. So what? Can we stick to facts? Which of Prof. Laffer's do you disagree with.

I start with disagreeing with the idea he has facts. What he has are interpretations of selectively chosen statistics.

He is not a credible one either, considering in 2006 he was trumpeting how our economic policy was on the right track and that the good times would keep on rolling.

Most people in 2006 didn't see it coming, did you? Here's what Barney Frank said when Bush tried to increase regulation:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Most people have no basis in or knowledge of economics. A good number of economists did, however, the supply side economists said otherwise and were, as usual, off the mark.

That's his opinion.

And as FDRs secretary of the Treasury, it should carry a lot more weight than we internet warriors.

We have hindsight, he didn't.

Let me just start off by saying the Cato Institute is even less credible than Arthur Laffer.

Your ad hominen objections don't constitute a debate. From Wikipedia:

The Institute's stated mission is "to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by striving "to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, lay public in questions of (public) policy and the proper role of government." Cato scholars conduct policy research on a broad range of public policy issues, and produce books, studies, op-eds, and blog posts. They are also frequent guests in the media.

The Cato Institute is non-partisan, and its scholars' views are not consistently aligned with either major political party. For example, Cato scholars were sharply critical of George W. Bush's administration (2001–2009) on a wide variety of issues, including the Iraq war, civil liberties, education, agriculture, energy policy, and excessive government spending. However, on other issues, most notably health care[1] Social Security,[2][3] global warming,[4] tax policy,[5] and immigration,[6][7][8][9][10] Cato scholars had praised Bush administration initiatives. During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain[11][12] and Barack Obama.[13][14]

I never said they were Republican, just looney supply side economists who spent consideral effort defending theories history has shown do not work. Cato is one step up from the Von Mises Institute.

Points taken from the very next section in Wikipedia from the Reaganomics page:

Most of the key economic indicators that were better than before or after were middle of the road or poor when compared to the rest of the century.

To fight inflation he caused a recession 1982.

He inherited a recession. ?

He did, then he started a new one once it was finished.

Did FDR also cause the 1937 recession

Nope.

Real wages declined, so in fact, the poor and middle were not getting richer.

Income increased for all income groups.

Not real wages.

Consumer confidence soared because he convinced everyone to stop saving and start spending, a huge part of the current consumer debt state the US has become.

Reagan passed away years ago, and has nothing to do with our current crisis.

Sadly, debt and bad economic policies don't.

We can quote articles at each other until the end of time, but the facts are the facts and the facts are Reagan was an economic trainwreck.

For some people, not even hindsight is 20/20.

Your misrepresentation/ignorance of the Reagan economic record reveal you to be a left-wing extremist ideologue like Obama. Funny how Reagan gets the blame for our current economic problems 22 years later but Carter doesn't get the blame for the 1982 recession. Spin all you want, but these facts remain:

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).

Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.

Eighteen million new jobs were created.

Federal Income Tax receipts almost doubled from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.

During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2%, and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.

The Misery Index dropped from 19.99% to 7.5%.

[Abraxas]

For some people, not even hindsight is 20/20.

Your misrepresentation/ignorance of the Reagan economic record reveal you to be a left-wing extremist ideologue like Obama.

Weren't you the one talking about ad hominems? Yes, I left wing. Sadly for you, however, reality has a pronounced liberal bias. I will say there has been one person acting the idealogue, showing a severe misrepresentation and ignorance of Reagan's economic policy, but it wasn't me.

Funny how Reagan gets the blame for our current economic problems 22 years later but Carter doesn't get the blame for the 1982 recession. Spin all you want, but these facts remain:

I never said anything about Carter. The fact is the recession was part of the effort to combat high inflation rates, largely under the creation and direction of Paul Volkner.

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).

Due to the above Carter appointee who Reagan kept on, Volkner.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.85% per year.

Not true. The net GDP growth grew a mere 2.77% which was barely higher than surrounding presidents, however, his policies created fewer jobs and productivity growth slowed.

Eighteen million new jobs were created.

Not net jobs. More net jobs were lost as unemployment went from 6.25% under Nixon/Ford/Carter to 6.75% under Reagan. Oh yes, and they kept those numbers in a recession that ended shortly after Reagan took office.

Federal Income Tax receipts almost doubled from 1980 to 1989, rising from $308.7Bn to $549.0Bn.

When adjusted for inflation they remained stagnant, a mere 0.2% increase. 3.1% was the average between 1990 and 2001.

During the Reagan Administration, federal receipts grew at an average rate of 8.2%, and federal outlays grew at an annual rate of 7.1%.

Once again, unadjusted for inflation.

The Misery Index dropped from 19.99% to 7.5%.

The misery index is a stupid measure anyway, it just adds the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. All this Misery Index talk means is that inflation bottomed out under Reagan, which is largely the work of Volkner, not Reagan.

[East of Eden]

Weren't you the one talking about ad hominems? Yes, I left wing. Sadly for you, however, reality has a pronounced liberal bias.

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).

Due to the above Carter appointee who Reagan kept on, Volkner.

Funny how Volkner got far different results under Carter and Reagan.

Not true. The net GDP growth grew a mere 2.77% which was barely higher than surrounding presidents,

Thanks for admitting it was higher under Reagan.

Not net jobs. More net jobs were lost as unemployment went from 6.25% under Nixon/Ford/Carter to 6.75% under Reagan. Oh yes, and they kept those numbers in a recession that ended shortly after Reagan took office.

More spin. Unemployment dropped dramatically under Reagan compared to his predecessor.

When adjusted for inflation they remained stagnant, a mere 0.2% increase.

Just pointing out the fallacy that tax cuts reduce revenue.

The misery index is a stupid measure anyway, it just adds the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. All this Misery Index talk means is that inflation bottomed out under Reagan, which is largely the work of Volkner, not Reagan.

Again, why didn't Volkner do this under Carter? The misery index isn't stupid if you're unemployed or an older person living on a fixed income.

[Wyvern]

The government provides many jobs, goods and services

The government doesn't produce anything. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't result in any net gain. It's like taking water from the deep end of the swimming pool and putting it in the shallow end in an attempt to raise the water level. When govenment takes money from businesses in the form of taxation to 'create jobs' for example, those businesses have less money to hire people.

Your fixation on taxes is showing. The government does indeed produce items, most of the infrastructure is the governments responsibility to produce. Roads and sewage lines are just two examples of what our government produces. Maybe you think everything should be privatized or that no industry should have any regulations after all look how well that worked when banking became deregulated. It should also be noted that many of those businesses you talk about were created with help from the government in the form of loans from the SBA.

[East of Eden]

Your fixation on taxes is showing. The government does indeed produce items, most of the infrastructure is the governments responsibility to produce. Roads and sewage lines are just two examples of what our government produces. Maybe you think everything should be privatized or that no industry should have any regulations

Never said that.

after all look how well that worked when banking became deregulated. It should also be noted that many of those businesses you talk about were created with help from the government in the form of loans from the SBA.

And to give SBA aid the government takes away from other businesses.

If tax cuts are irrelevant, why this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/busin ... 99993.html

[Abraxas]

Weren't you the one talking about ad hominems? Yes, I left wing. Sadly for you, however, reality has a pronounced liberal bias.

During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).

Due to the above Carter appointee who Reagan kept on, Volkner.

Funny how Volkner got far different results under Carter and Reagan.

Volkner started in 1979.

Not true. The net GDP growth grew a mere 2.77% which was barely higher than surrounding presidents,

Thanks for admitting it was higher under Reagan. [/QUOTE] Not as high as other presidents in the 20th century, but yes, higher than Carter and Bush Sr.

Not net jobs. More net jobs were lost as unemployment went from 6.25% under Nixon/Ford/Carter to 6.75% under Reagan. Oh yes, and they kept those numbers in a recession that ended shortly after Reagan took office.

More spin. Unemployment dropped dramatically under Reagan compared to his predecessor.

Untrue.

When adjusted for inflation they remained stagnant, a mere 0.2% increase.

Just pointing out the fallacy that tax cuts reduce revenue.

They do. Revenue would have been a good deal higher had the tax cuts not been issued, because the only thing that kept them as high was the oil price crash and the emergence of new market sectors. Presidents who cut them less had higher revenues.

The misery index is a stupid measure anyway, it just adds the inflation rate to the unemployment rate. All this Misery Index talk means is that inflation bottomed out under Reagan, which is largely the work of Volkner, not Reagan.

Again, why didn't Volkner do this under Carter? The misery index isn't stupid if you're unemployed or an older person living on a fixed income.

It is stupid because it is no more indicative than inflation rates or unemployment rates in and of themselves. Adding the two together is unhelpful. Might as well create the supermisery index by adding in the crime rate and the superdupermisery index by adding the infant mortality rate.

Volkner was under Carter for a year and a half, he was under Reagan for seven.

[East of Eden]

They do. Revenue would have been a good deal higher had the tax cuts not been issued, because the only thing that kept them as high was the oil price crash and the emergence of new market sectors.

The emergence of new market sectors happens in a good economy.

Presidents who cut them less had higher revenues.

See my NYT link in post 48. Europe disagree with you.

It is stupid because it is no more indicative than inflation rates or unemployment rates in and of themselves. Adding the two together is unhelpful. Might as well create the supermisery index by adding in the crime rate and the superdupermisery index by adding the infant mortality rate.

There is a link between the crime rate and the misery index but what does the infant mortality rate have to do with the economy?