Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

As someone who studies financial markets, and provides detailed analysis as part of his job, it is amazing to me just how little the average person understands in regards to how well President Obama has performed in the face of historic obstacles and an obstructionist congress. Below is one of the best, most accurate, and fair appraisals I have seen. Please pass this along to get the word out and counter with facts the noise coming from the Faux News drones.

"Presidents universally take credit when the economy does well (such as Reagan,) and choose to blame other factors when the economy does poorly (such as Carter.) But there was a clear pattern, and link, between policy and financial market performance.


Although we hear almost no one in the Obama administration taking credit for record index highs, they should. Because the President deserves attention for how well this economy has done during his leadership."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhar...cally-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/

 

He can not take credit nor will he. Remember that we will all be comparing his era to Bill Clinton's. That will end up making him look bad.

 

Not so fast there, for those who are informed, they understand the facts below and will understand what a great Job Obama has done.

"By all measures, President Obama has outperformed every modern President. The easiest comparison would be to President Reagan, whose economic performance was superb. Reagan had the enormous benefit of two major factors:

1. a significantly better economy than Obama inherited, even if afflicted by inflation
2. and his two terms coincided with the highest performing demographic years of the Baby Boomer generation.

In 2000, at the end of Clinton’s administration, the Consumer Confidence Index was at a record high 140. By January, 2009 this index had fallen to an historic low of 25.3. Comparatively, when Reagan took office at the end of the economically weak Carter years the Confidence Index was still at 74.4! Today this measure of how people feel about the country is still nowhere near 2000 levels, but it is almost 3 times better than 4 years ago."

 

Honestly, People are looking at if they can get a job. Obama's unemployment wasn't as good as Clinton's. I understand the stats in general are better. But when you talk to the average person, They simply want to know if they can a job in addition to other items. I didn't know he was doing so good though.

 

I agree with you Arch. The economy is good for a few but most have to deal with either stagnant wages coupled with rising cost or long term unemployment with few benefits now. Like always its great for the haves sucks for the have nots.

 

Valid point that the average American is most concerned about their own finances and putting food on the table and a roof over their head. This is in part why I try to post articles such as this, as people really need to understand that in 2008-2009, the US economy was literally teetering on the precipice of a major Depression 2.0. I'm talking 1920's style breadlines, massive runs on banks, and mass hysteria here. The fact that things are not great for everyone yet tends to cloud the amazing, and I mean amazing, progress that has been made.

 

Commonly called a type II error in economics. Its hard to prove a not or what's been prevented. You can tell people a flu shot prevents pandemics but if doesn't actually happen you don't have the evidence to back it up just speculation.

 

This president came into office as a former community organizer who never had any administrative experience in balancing a budget or doing a payroll.........that said !.......I think he has learn a great deal on the job and if he was given a mulligan or (a second chance) to closely over-see the spending and destiny of those 4 congressionally approved stimulus packages,........ I think in hind sight we would be in a radically different condition as a country........

 

seriously?

The guy was a senator in both state and federal for over 10 years and you pick community organizer for less than 3 years. I understand he wasn't chair for any economical committees but I think people take into account that and his years at Harvard studying constitutional law over 3 years. Even the law school lasted longer.

 

The bolded part above is simply not true Arch, people tend to forget that President Obama was a senator before becoming president and sat on many committees including the following budgetary and financial committees..

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security

Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection

As far as overseeing the congressional approved stimulus packages, keep in mind, the Federal Reserve authored those packages and told congress that they better pass them or suffer a major depression. The oversight by the Obama administration on those packages has been extremely vigilant per below...

"Today the Congressional Budget Office is reporting a $200B decrease in the deficit almost entirely due to increased revenue from a growing economy and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. The deficit is now only 4% of the GDP, down from over 10% at the end of Bush’s administration – and projections are for it to be only 2% by 2015 (before Obama leaves office.) America’s “debt problem” seems largely solved, and almost all due to growth rather than austerity.
We can largely thank a fairer tax code, improved regulation and consistent SEC enforcement."

"In any case, the facts on the deficit contradict the widely held notion that the Obama administration is crazily out of control when it comes to the nation's finances. In order to have a rational discussion about the economy, government programs, and the level of government spending, voters need to have a better idea of what the deficit actually is."

http://theweek.com/article/index/254...cit-is-falling

Bottom line, if one can look at the facts objectively, while there is still a lot of work to be done, the progress that has been made in 4 short years has been nothing short of extraordinary given the desolate wasteland that was the economy in 2009.

 

:smt043:smt043:smt043

Politicians/Wall Street Puppets are not leaders

 

the thing that concerns me the most at this point is in 2016 will we elect a new president that will take this progress and run with it or will we digress and end up with someone that spends their first term trying to undo all the good that has been done

there is a reason they aren't tooting their horn just yet...but it's coming...more than likely as not an overdone message...rather a breathe of fresh air come election time as to why we need a democrat to continue with growth and prosperity in this country

 

This post reeks of deja vu.

 

I understand your skepticism on this issue, Washington certainly has earned it. That being said, there has been significant progress on the oversight of financial services per below. We can probably agree that the "haves" still don't give a damn about the "have nots".

The new financial services law requires 358 regulatory filings.

John Boehner on Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010 in a news conference
John Boehner on point in describing new regulations in consumer protection law

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...oehner-point-describing-new-regulations-cons/

 

.....If you do elect another democrat for president, SHE must be wiser than president Obama in understanding that you must work and negotiate forth-rightly with house republicans----they are not going anywhere, infact their numbers will probably increase in the mid-term elections...the U.S senate might even change hands....With the projections and the forecasting of how the next U.S congress will look, the next U.S president will be greatly pressured to reign-in spending and be more fiscally responsible.......

 

She could always pull a LBJ and wrangle some arms. She has the political influence after all.

 

Well Arch, considering that President Obama has reached out to republicans time and time again, and was met with below...

TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008 and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.” The excerpt includes a special bonus nugget of Mitt Romney dissing the Tea Party.***********000000]
Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23...#ixzz28TolBang

It takes two to tango, no matter what Obama did the GOP was not going to agree, even when he was proposing some of their very own ideas.

Not sure if you were intimating that President Obama is fiscally reckless, but if so, the chart below should be an eye opener for you.

 

LOKI FOR PRESIDENT​

 

.......I second that......as the beginning elements of his exploratory committee, let us now begin to put together his cabinet:

- Bliss (V.P.)

- Satyr (Secretary of state)

- TDK (Secretary of treasury)