Absolutely terrible that he has improved the US Economy, causing the US$ to appreciate. Not sure why he is responsible for the problems affecting the economies of Europe and Australia.
He hasn't improved the economy. The dollar hasn't appreciated. Other currencies are depreciating. All are following the same flawed model. The U.S. is like the skinniest obese, chain smoking, alcoholic at the clinic. Betting the other patients will die sooner doesn't mean the U.S. is healthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Yes, thanks for that $18 trillion in debt that keeps piling up with no sign of a slowdown. Be sure to thank him again in 2016.
Yeah, get the shrub back. He knew how to balance a budget.
Obama borrowed more in in one term than all other presidents minus Bush combined. He took about five years to borrow more than Bush did in 8.
To suggest Obama is fiscally responsible is the height of lunacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Thanks Obama!
Thanks to your own government in your respective country. Crude oil is cheaper because of strong dollar.
Crude oil is cheaper because OPEC is engaged in a price war to try to destroy anyone producing gas via shale or fracking which are more expensive processes to use to extract oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Yes, thanks for that $18 trillion in debt that keeps piling up with no sign of a slowdown. Be sure to thank him again in 2016.
Stop being so partisan. It won't kill you to give a shred of credit where credit is due. Naysayers were predicting complete doom and gloom for the economy is Obama got a 2nd term, the opposite has happened. Debt is an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean you need to spit on the strength of the economy and record low unemployment as if that means nothing, and just switch the topic to debt because you can't stand to aknowledge something positive. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty and "I need to win points with every statement/post" that makes the political system and discourse such shit. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but I don't need to be in order to be honest, objective, and aknowledge something good.
There's no credit due. At best you could argue Obama has borrowed economic growth. We do not have record low unemployment. The U.S. unemployment rate has been as low as 2.5%. The economy has many structural weaknesses and if it were truly strong we would need high interest rates to limit inflation pressure and malinvestment with all the wealth generated. The current interest rate does not reflect that at all.
That is the truth in an honest and objective manner. It doesn't even begin to touch the workforce participation rate either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradipao
For what is worth, Euro is falling because the European Central Bank this month started the "Quantitative Easing", basically printing euros and so weakening the exchange rate. US experience three rounds of QE (IIRC 2007, 2010 and 2012) and in fact USD was weakened in those periods.
It's always fun to watch people fix lack of growth or imagined growth with more imaginary money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Stop being so partisan. It won't kill you to give a shred of credit where credit is due. Naysayers were predicting complete doom and gloom for the economy is Obama got a 2nd term, the opposite has happened. Debt is an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean you need to spit on the strength of the economy and record low unemployment as if that means nothing, and just switch the topic to debt because you can't stand to aknowledge something positive. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty and "I need to win points with every statement/post" that makes the political system and discourse such shit. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but I don't need to be in order to be honest, objective, and aknowledge something good.
I've been just as hard on George W. Bush, so that isn't the issue.
The economy has not recovered. It's flooded with money by the Fed and the lending rate is near zero. This indicates a still-shaky economy at best. At worst, a new bubble is growing and there will be another massive crash as a result.
Why do you think wages haven't changed and companies are hoarding cash and buying back their own stock? Because they don't trust the economy, nor do they trust Washington to do the right thing.
Personally, if I were to sell everything tomorrow I'd retire rich, however the prospect of another bubble bursting is real and I am concerned the next one will be much larger and will last longer unless it results in no bailouts and no intervention from Washington (something they are unwilling to do).
It isn't shocking that you are doing exactly what corporations are doing. You have money you could invest but you don't know where the real return will be due to all the malinvestment created by the Federal Reserve via money printing and the Federal Government via crony capitalism.
The USD isn't appreciating, everything else is depreciating. Still good for the U.S., but don't be giving credit where credit isn't due out of some sense of empty jingoism.
Currencies are hard to understand. It's not clear to me that a really high or really low valued currency is desirable. If high then fewer people from outside the country can/will buy your products. If low then you can't afford imported products.
A really high currency would be great if you were fairly self sufficient and did not depend on exports. A self sufficient country would also do well with a low currency since it would export more.
As for Apple products, they sell over half their products outside the U.S. You would think they would be hurt by a high USD relative to other currencies since the company is not adjusting their prices to local markets. Odd behavior for an international company.
He hasn't improved the economy. The dollar hasn't appreciated. Other currencies are depreciating. All are following the same flawed model. The U.S. is like the skinniest obese, chain smoking, alcoholic at the clinic. Betting the other patients will die sooner doesn't mean the U.S. is healthy.
Obama borrowed more in in one term than all other presidents minus Bush combined. He took about five years to borrow more than Bush did in 8.
To suggest Obama is fiscally responsible is the height of lunacy.
Crude oil is cheaper because OPEC is engaged in a price war to try to destroy anyone producing gas via shale or fracking which are more expensive processes to use to extract oil.
There's no credit due. At best you could argue Obama has borrowed economic growth. We do not have record low unemployment. The U.S. unemployment rate has been as low as 2.5%. The economy has many structural weaknesses and if it were truly strong we would need high interest rates to limit inflation pressure and malinvestment with all the wealth generated. The current interest rate does not reflect that at all.
That is the truth in an honest and objective manner. It doesn't even begin to touch the workforce participation rate either.
It's always fun to watch people fix lack of growth or imagined growth with more imaginary money.
It isn't shocking that you are doing exactly what corporations are doing. You have money you could invest but you don't know where the real return will be due to all the malinvestment created by the Federal Reserve via money printing and the Federal Government via crony capitalism.
While we have already shared some of the critiques of this fact-check in a previous follow-up story, critics have since noted that two of our fellow fact checkers -- the Washington Post Fact Checker and the Associated Press -- offered more negative rulings on related claims.
The Fact Checker addressed the apparent discrepancy succinctly in a follow-up column, saying "we did not evaluate the same thing."
There’s a widespread misconception that we gave a Mostly True rating to Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch column. After our original fact-check published, White House spokesman Jay Carney tweeted, "PolitiFact backs MarketWatch analysis of federal spending under POTUS & predecessors." Many conservative bloggers read our fact-check the same way, as they attacked us.
The assumption made by both sides is wrong. We examined at a Facebook postthat said Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." The Facebook post does rely partly on Nutting’s work, and our item addresses that, but we did not simply give our seal of approval to everything Nutting wrote. In fact, half of the Facebook post stems from something else entirely -- a claim on Mitt Romney’s website.
A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.
Never seems to go the other way though. When the AUD was going gangbusters against the USD a few years back, prices in the Oz store didn't drop to reflect an appreciating local currency.
That’s quite a bit larger than Nutting’s $140 billion, but by our calculations, it would only raise Obama’s average annual spending increase from 1.4 percent to somewhere between 3.4 percent and 4.9 percent. That would place Obama either second from the bottom or third from the bottom out of the 10 presidents we rated, rather than last.
Rubbish. When Australia had a higher exchange rate than the U.S a few years ago, the price was still over $150 more for a phone, and even more for a computer. I used the same formula to estimate the AUD price for Apple Watch. I was spot on. I'm guessing there's a middle man taking a cut.
Sorry for the massive quote. The headline unemployment rate is not that misleading. Put it another way, why would consider someone not actively looking for work to be unemployed? What about retirees? Disabled? Students?
This is Eco 101. Actually it's high school economics. Unemployment is measured against those "participating". The drop in participation is worrying but that's a separate issue. Of those actually looking for work, the unemployment rate is what it is stated to be. If you trust your relevant govt agency.
Rubbish. When Australia had a higher exchange rate than the U.S a few years ago, the price was still over $150 more for a phone, and even more for a computer. I used the same formula to estimate the AUD price for Apple Watch. I was spot on. I'm guessing there's a middle man taking a cut.
Perhaps the price also has a component which reflects a predicted value of a currency? Countries, such as Australia and Canada, are heavily reliant on commodities which have huge price swings. Currency values seem to reflect this. This is apart from shipping, taxes, market size and so on ... With relatively low valued currencies at this time I don't see why people wouldn't look to other products not tied so closely to the USD. Perhaps they don't exist?
Comments
I'm asking the questions.
You're asking what questions?
Thanks Obama!
Absolutely terrible that he has improved the US Economy, causing the US$ to appreciate. Not sure why he is responsible for the problems affecting the economies of Europe and Australia.
He hasn't improved the economy. The dollar hasn't appreciated. Other currencies are depreciating. All are following the same flawed model. The U.S. is like the skinniest obese, chain smoking, alcoholic at the clinic. Betting the other patients will die sooner doesn't mean the U.S. is healthy.
Yes, thanks for that $18 trillion in debt that keeps piling up with no sign of a slowdown. Be sure to thank him again in 2016.
Yeah, get the shrub back. He knew how to balance a budget.
Obama borrowed more in in one term than all other presidents minus Bush combined. He took about five years to borrow more than Bush did in 8.
To suggest Obama is fiscally responsible is the height of lunacy.
Quote:
Thanks Obama!
Thanks to your own government in your respective country. Crude oil is cheaper because of strong dollar.
Crude oil is cheaper because OPEC is engaged in a price war to try to destroy anyone producing gas via shale or fracking which are more expensive processes to use to extract oil.
Yes, thanks for that $18 trillion in debt that keeps piling up with no sign of a slowdown. Be sure to thank him again in 2016.
Stop being so partisan. It won't kill you to give a shred of credit where credit is due. Naysayers were predicting complete doom and gloom for the economy is Obama got a 2nd term, the opposite has happened. Debt is an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean you need to spit on the strength of the economy and record low unemployment as if that means nothing, and just switch the topic to debt because you can't stand to aknowledge something positive. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty and "I need to win points with every statement/post" that makes the political system and discourse such shit. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but I don't need to be in order to be honest, objective, and aknowledge something good.
There's no credit due. At best you could argue Obama has borrowed economic growth. We do not have record low unemployment. The U.S. unemployment rate has been as low as 2.5%. The economy has many structural weaknesses and if it were truly strong we would need high interest rates to limit inflation pressure and malinvestment with all the wealth generated. The current interest rate does not reflect that at all.
That is the truth in an honest and objective manner. It doesn't even begin to touch the workforce participation rate either.
For what is worth, Euro is falling because the European Central Bank this month started the "Quantitative Easing", basically printing euros and so weakening the exchange rate. US experience three rounds of QE (IIRC 2007, 2010 and 2012) and in fact USD was weakened in those periods.
It's always fun to watch people fix lack of growth or imagined growth with more imaginary money.
Stop being so partisan. It won't kill you to give a shred of credit where credit is due. Naysayers were predicting complete doom and gloom for the economy is Obama got a 2nd term, the opposite has happened. Debt is an issue, yes, but that doesn't mean you need to spit on the strength of the economy and record low unemployment as if that means nothing, and just switch the topic to debt because you can't stand to aknowledge something positive. It's this kind of intellectual dishonesty and "I need to win points with every statement/post" that makes the political system and discourse such shit. I'm not the biggest Obama fan, but I don't need to be in order to be honest, objective, and aknowledge something good.
I've been just as hard on George W. Bush, so that isn't the issue.
The economy has not recovered. It's flooded with money by the Fed and the lending rate is near zero. This indicates a still-shaky economy at best. At worst, a new bubble is growing and there will be another massive crash as a result.
Why do you think wages haven't changed and companies are hoarding cash and buying back their own stock? Because they don't trust the economy, nor do they trust Washington to do the right thing.
Personally, if I were to sell everything tomorrow I'd retire rich, however the prospect of another bubble bursting is real and I am concerned the next one will be much larger and will last longer unless it results in no bailouts and no intervention from Washington (something they are unwilling to do).
It isn't shocking that you are doing exactly what corporations are doing. You have money you could invest but you don't know where the real return will be due to all the malinvestment created by the Federal Reserve via money printing and the Federal Government via crony capitalism.
Currencies are hard to understand. It's not clear to me that a really high or really low valued currency is desirable. If high then fewer people from outside the country can/will buy your products. If low then you can't afford imported products.
A really high currency would be great if you were fairly self sufficient and did not depend on exports. A self sufficient country would also do well with a low currency since it would export more.
As for Apple products, they sell over half their products outside the U.S. You would think they would be hurt by a high USD relative to other currencies since the company is not adjusting their prices to local markets. Odd behavior for an international company.
I’m sorry, do you actually believe this?
He hasn't improved the economy. The dollar hasn't appreciated. Other currencies are depreciating. All are following the same flawed model. The U.S. is like the skinniest obese, chain smoking, alcoholic at the clinic. Betting the other patients will die sooner doesn't mean the U.S. is healthy.
Obama borrowed more in in one term than all other presidents minus Bush combined. He took about five years to borrow more than Bush did in 8.
To suggest Obama is fiscally responsible is the height of lunacy.
Crude oil is cheaper because OPEC is engaged in a price war to try to destroy anyone producing gas via shale or fracking which are more expensive processes to use to extract oil.
There's no credit due. At best you could argue Obama has borrowed economic growth. We do not have record low unemployment. The U.S. unemployment rate has been as low as 2.5%. The economy has many structural weaknesses and if it were truly strong we would need high interest rates to limit inflation pressure and malinvestment with all the wealth generated. The current interest rate does not reflect that at all.
That is the truth in an honest and objective manner. It doesn't even begin to touch the workforce participation rate either.
It's always fun to watch people fix lack of growth or imagined growth with more imaginary money.
It isn't shocking that you are doing exactly what corporations are doing. You have money you could invest but you don't know where the real return will be due to all the malinvestment created by the Federal Reserve via money printing and the Federal Government via crony capitalism.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
"Rick Ungar Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy."
"Rick Ungar Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/
In that very same link:
UPDATE, May 31, 2012
While we have already shared some of the critiques of this fact-check in a previous follow-up story, critics have since noted that two of our fellow fact checkers -- the Washington Post Fact Checker and the Associated Press -- offered more negative rulings on related claims.
The Fact Checker addressed the apparent discrepancy succinctly in a follow-up column, saying "we did not evaluate the same thing."
There’s a widespread misconception that we gave a Mostly True rating to Rex Nutting’s MarketWatch column. After our original fact-check published, White House spokesman Jay Carney tweeted, "PolitiFact backs MarketWatch analysis of federal spending under POTUS & predecessors." Many conservative bloggers read our fact-check the same way, as they attacked us.
The assumption made by both sides is wrong. We examined at a Facebook postthat said Mitt Romney is wrong to claim that spending under Obama has "accelerated at a pace without precedent in recent history," because it's actually risen "slower than at any time in nearly 60 years." The Facebook post does rely partly on Nutting’s work, and our item addresses that, but we did not simply give our seal of approval to everything Nutting wrote. In fact, half of the Facebook post stems from something else entirely -- a claim on Mitt Romney’s website.
A number of critics also argued that spending for the Troubled Asset Relief Program should be taken into account. This program aided troubled financial institutions and involved a lot of money going out the door in fiscal 2009 and a lot of money coming in the door in subsequent years as the money was paid back to the treasury. The critics note that counting the TARP expenses as Bush’s artificially raises the baseline level of spending Obama inherited, thereby making Obama’s subsequent spending increases seem unrealistically small.
We think reasonable people can disagree on which president should be responsible for TARP spending, but to give the critics their say, we’ll include it in our alternative calculation. So, combining the fiscal 2009 costs for programs that are either clearly or arguably Obama’s -- the stimulus, the CHIP expansion, the incremental increase in appropriations over Bush’s level and TARP -- produces a shift from Bush to Obama of between $307 billion and $456 billion, based on the most reasonable estimates we’ve seen critics offer.
In that very same link:
And then they go on to say:
Sorry for the massive quote. The headline unemployment rate is not that misleading. Put it another way, why would consider someone not actively looking for work to be unemployed? What about retirees? Disabled? Students?
This is Eco 101. Actually it's high school economics. Unemployment is measured against those "participating". The drop in participation is worrying but that's a separate issue. Of those actually looking for work, the unemployment rate is what it is stated to be. If you trust your relevant govt agency.
Perhaps the price also has a component which reflects a predicted value of a currency? Countries, such as Australia and Canada, are heavily reliant on commodities which have huge price swings. Currency values seem to reflect this. This is apart from shipping, taxes, market size and so on ... With relatively low valued currencies at this time I don't see why people wouldn't look to other products not tied so closely to the USD. Perhaps they don't exist?