Obama's economic record - positive or negative?

[Linden Arden]

Facts-

Official UE is persistently high at 8.2% with many other jobless unaccounted for.

GDP is considerably better than than the -8.9 annual rate of q4 2008 and has been positive since mid-2009.

Inflation is nearly dead as 10 yr Treasuries yield only 1.5%.

Corporate profits are at all time highs at over $100 on the S&P 500.

The US Dollar has gained strength as measured by the DXY.

Deficits are high but lower than FY 2008-09 that Bush left.

Energy prices are considerably lower than 2008 peaks.

Markets are up 80% from Jan 2009 (S&P 500 was 806 then).


So, on net, are we better off economically than in 2008?

[goonhead]

I would say slightly positive, not overwhelmingly so. I was unemployed for much of Obama's first year in office, then found a job at around 3/4 of what the old job paid, so I have felt the effects of the recession and recovery.

[Ludovic]

I think he did better than the alternative would have done when you look back at recent history, but while he's avoided a total catastrophe, which is to be commended, there's little on the upside that he can take credit for since everything has been blocked by a hostile Congress. Which isn't to say he'd be stellar if given a cooperative Congress: you can't say one way or the other. (Except in certain areas such as health care: if he were successful in moving more toward a single-payer system rather than the hybrid we have now, it would be better for the economy due to simplifying and cheapening health care.)

[denquixote]

Considering the obstacles confronting him in the form of the Republican party it is nothing short of miraculous. When Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader of the Senate, says his number one goal in Congress for the next four years, as of 2008, is to insure that Barak Obama would be a one term president, you must marvel at what has been accomplished. McConnell's goal was not to fight for improved ealth care, not to fight unemployment, not to end successfully the wars we were and are fighting, not to reduce taxes, not to balance the budget, not to improve the quality of education in the country, not to improve the economy etc. etc. etc. Rather his goal was to make the President of the U.S. as near a failure as he was able. Given the cooperation of the Republicans, that is, no cooperation, Obama is an extraordinary president.

[MemoryLeak]

We're better off how?

President Obama and his advisors assumed (as would have McCain or Clinton had they prevailed) that the system would take care of itself, just as it had in the late 80s, late 90s/early 00s and post 9/11. It didn't.

Had the President and his team (I include the party as part of the team) spent as much time and effort on the fiscal mess in which we're currently mired as they did on the silly healthcare solution they devised, this would be a replay of '96. Instead, we're looking at the possibility of a replay of '92 except there's no viable 3rd-party candidate this time. It'll be an embarrassment and humiliation if this is even close.

[Leaper]

It'll be an embarrassment and humiliation if this is even close.

Well, that it'll be, then, because so far, no poll has really shown it otherwise. Sitting back and letting anti-incumbent sentiment do all the work didn't work for Kerry, and it's not going to work for Romney, and I'm sure he knows it. (Has it ever worked, really?)

[adaher]

I would give the President a neutral on the economy, while an overwhelmingly negative on the deficit.

When I think of what John mcCain would have done differently, the only big change would be no stimulus, so you figure we get the same result we have now, just with a somewhat lower deficit.

[Ludovic]

It'll be an embarrassment and humiliation if this is even close.I agree. The very best Romney could ever hope to be is just as good as Obama on the economy, while being a pushover for his righty pals on social issues. That it will probably be close is a testament to the blind partisanship and prejudice of 30% of the nation.

[adaher]

You mean 50%. 30% doesn't make for a close election. And an incumbent with a record of failure is not exactly one that gets reelected, unless we assume that 45% will vote for him no matter what because they are the ones who are too partisan.

[Ludovic]

The 30% vote more often than average. 50% of the population is the total registered percentage of registered voters who actually vote.And an incumbent with a record of failure is not exactly one that gets reelected Can you give me an example of this?

[adaher]

carter, Bush 41, Ford, LBJ(he had the courtesy to get out before being offiically defeated).

The President's approval rating is lower than Bush's was at this stage of his Presidency. Like Bush, however, he has a lot of dead enders supporting him no matter what.

[Airbeck]

an incumbent with a record of failure

What incumbent are you referring to here? Obama? If so, can you elaborate on this?

What failures are you speaking of, and can you clarify this record of failure that you are asserting?

And, since you never answered this from another thread, I'll try again:

What metrics are you using to determine this "record of failure"? How are you scoring his performance? How does his performance compare with our last president? Better? Worse? How so?

[adaher]

Well, compared to Bush he's a smashing success, but that's a pretty low bar. Compared to Clinton or Reagan, he's Bush's 3rd term. He has not earned reelection.

All you have to do is look at the OP's stats to determine that he hasn't earned reelection. FDR and Reagan inherited much worse economies and did better with them.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I would give the President a neutral on the economy, while an overwhelmingly negative on the deficit.

When I think of what John mcCain would have done differently, the only big change would be no stimulus, so you figure we get the same result we have now, just with a somewhat lower deficit.Well, perhaps that and a Depression. Hint: the stimulus, while adding to the deficit, turned GDP and job creation from negative to positive.

Obama's performance has been undeniably positive - it's just clearly been not enough, and arguably should have been better.

[Airbeck]

Well, compared to Bush he's a smashing success, but that's a pretty low bar. Compared to Clinton or Reagan, he's Bush's 3rd term. He has not earned reelection.

All you have to do is look at the OP's stats to determine that he hasn't earned reelection. FDR and Reagan inherited much worse economies and did better with them.

You need to put 'in your opinion' at the end of each of your sentences. I'm not seeing too much factual information, just subjective opining really. FDR and Reagan didn't have the same rabid, win at all costs to the nation opposition that Obama has had. I'm pretty sure the situations those two had aren't exactly the same as now, but I'm sure you know that too.

Do you think Romney has 'earned' election then? Or is it just that he's anyone but Obama? If so, what has he done to 'earn' being elected pray tell?

What would it have taken in your view for Obama to have 'earned reelection'? Anything that is remotely within reason for him to have gotten done in his first term? Lay out what you would have accepted as a good job if you would please. I'd love to see where you've set the bar for him, and whether its actually reachable or not. I suspect its not.

[adaher]

Well, perhaps that and a Depression. Hint: the stimulus, while adding to the deficit, turned GDP and job creation from negative to positive.

Since job growth did not exceed expecations WITHOUT a stimulus, I'm skeptical that the stimulus had any effect at all.

Obama's performance has been undeniably positive - it's just clearly been not enough, and arguably should have been better.

Given predictions about economic growth over the last few years, the President's record is substantially below expectations. His supporters can claim things were worse than expected, but when? Does four years of "unexpected" bad news mean we still are underestimating our problems, or is it evidence that the administration is part of the problem?

[adaher]

You need to put 'in your opinion' at the end of each of your sentences. I'm not seeing too much factual information, just subjective opining really. FDR and Reagan didn't have the same rabid, win at all costs to the nation opposition that Obama has had. I'm pretty sure the situations those two had aren't exactly the same as now, but I'm sure you know that too.

Lots of opinion masquerading as fact in this thread, don't single me out just because my opinion is in disagreement with yours.

FDR and Reagan faced plenty of opposition, as did Bill Clinton. They overcame that. Obama can't, and why should we reelect him when that challenge will get even worse after the elections, when Republicans are likely to control the Senate?


Do you think Romney has 'earned' election then? Or is it just that he's anyone but Obama? If so, what has he done to 'earn' being elected pray tell?

If Santorum or Gingrich had been the nominee, I would have voted for Obama or Gary Johnson. Mitt Romney's resume makes him more than qualified to be President, and if past performance is predictive, he'll be a solid President.


What would it have taken in your view for Obama to have 'earned reelection'? Anything that is remotely within reason for him to have gotten done in his first term? Lay out what you would have accepted as a good job if you would please. I'd love to see where you've set the bar for him, and whether its actually reachable or not. I suspect its not.

For me, the biggest problems he has caused are spending and the deficit. The economy is too complex to blame on one man and there are problems in Europe right now that clearly aren't his fault.

However, spending has gone way up under his administration, he has no plan to cut that spending despite his promises of a "net spending cut" when he ran in 2008, and he has refused to so much as make a counteroffer to the Ryan budget, at least one that he'll write down and have scored by the CBO.

You know what would make me consider a vote for Obama right now? A scored, 10-year budget plan with binding targets as a counter to the Ryan budget, with specificity matching the Ryan budget. Doesn't have to exceed it, I know the Ryan budget contains a lot of assumptions, but it should at least be as specific. And it would have to reduce the deficit as much as the Ryan plan: $5 trillion over 10 years.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Since job growth did not exceed expecations WITHOUT a stimulus, I'm skeptical that the stimulus had any effect at all.

Given predictions about economic growth over the last few years, the President's record is substantially below expectations. His supporters can claim things were worse than expected, but when? Does four years of "unexpected" bad news mean we still are underestimating our problems, or is it evidence that the administration is part of the problem?Without the stimulus, many many more people would have lost their jobs: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

The stimulus turned GDP from nearly -9% to almost 5% in one year. Once the stimulus petered out, GDP fell to much more modest, yet still positive, levels, as did job growth. Exactly what many Keynesian-oriented economists said would happen.

This was all resolved a long time ago. Only partisan salesmen would be trying to sell this argument at this time.

[adaher]

That's based on a model, not empirical evidence. THe predictions about where the economy would be without a stimulus were also based on a model. Who is to say which model is the right one?

Looking at the example of Europe, is there any connection whatsoever between differing levels of economic growth and differing fiscal stimulus policies? if fiscal stimulus works, then countries that did stimulus should grow substantially faster than countries that did not.

[adaher]

This was all resolved a long time ago. Only partisan salesmen would be trying to sell this argument at this time.


This is a habit that needs to really be broken, this idea that liberals decide what the facts are, and any disagreement constitutes partisan hackery or outright dishonesty.

Nothing was resolved, there is no way to empirically prove that the economy was better off with stimulus, or that stimulus has ever been helpful to reviving an economy. It's all theory, and 80 years after Keynes, it remains theory.

[Jas09]

This is a habit that needs to really be broken, this idea that liberals decide what the facts are, and any disagreement constitutes partisan hackery or outright dishonesty.

Nothing was resolved, there is no way to empirically prove that the economy was better off with stimulus, or that stimulus has ever been helpful to reviving an economy. It's all theory, and 80 years after Keynes, it remains theory.Is there, to your mind, any way that this theory could be proven? If not (and one would assume that you feel the same about other economic theories like the Austrian school ones), then how should we make economic political decisions?

[adaher]

We make economic political decisions based on what we do know, which is not everything that we need to know.

The only way economic theory can be proven is for it to be tried in many different places and have similar results. The actual record of stimulus around the world and throughout history is all over the map. But if you just assume it always works and an economy would have been even worse off without it, then you have a hypothesis that can never be disproved.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This is a habit that needs to really be broken, this idea that liberals decide what the facts are, and any disagreement constitutes partisan hackery or outright dishonesty.

Nothing was resolved, there is no way to empirically prove that the economy was better off with stimulus, or that stimulus has ever been helpful to reviving an economy. It's all theory, and 80 years after Keynes, it remains theory.That was the result of multiple models conducted by different individuals. That is empirical, actually, rather than anecdotal or going with your gut.

Another way to test a model is to make predictions based on the model, and evaluate the accuracy of those predictions in regards to the real-world outcomes. On that score, Keynesian models have been quite well validated, and others have failed miserably. e.g. http://notthetreasuryview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/which-macro-economists-are-worth.html

Of course, when the models don't say what you want, you can just reject them in favor of your gut, and then not bother to make predictions or check outcomes.

Finally, I'm not deciding what the facts are. I'm looking at the facts and coming to conclusions about them. I'd recommend that you give it a try.

[PrettyVacant]

Looking at the example of Europe, is there any connection whatsoever between differing levels of economic growth and differing fiscal stimulus policies? if fiscal stimulus works, then countries that did stimulus should grow substantially faster than countries that did not.

Not really. It depends to what the stimulus is in response.

Keynes never stated the correct response to a Lehman Brothers debacle.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

We make economic political decisions based on what we do know, which is not everything that we need to know.

The only way economic theory can be proven is for it to be tried in many different places and have similar results. The actual record of stimulus around the world and throughout history is all over the map. But if you just assume it always works and an economy would have been even worse off without it, then you have a hypothesis that can never be disproved.Or you could just make statements up with no reference to any sort of evidence or fact or anything, like "[t]he actual record of stimulus around the world and throughout history is all over the map." [citation needed]

Then you can sell a point without having to work at it, and hope that nobody comes by to call you out on it.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

That's based on a model, not empirical evidence. THe predictions about where the economy would be without a stimulus were also based on a model. Who is to say which model is the right one?

Looking at the example of Europe, is there any connection whatsoever between differing levels of economic growth and differing fiscal stimulus policies? if fiscal stimulus works, then countries that did stimulus should grow substantially faster than countries that did not.You can easily look at growth by austerity measures: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/austerity-and-growth-again-wonkish/

Austerity measures have led to poor growth or to further retraction.

[Airbeck]

We make economic political decisions based on what we do know, which is not everything that we need to know.

The only way economic theory can be proven is for it to be tried in many different places and have similar results. The actual record of stimulus around the world and throughout history is all over the map. But if you just assume it always works and an economy would have been even worse off without it, then you have a hypothesis that can never be disproved.

OK, whats the actual record of trickle down, tax cuts for the rich type actions on economic recovery? Better or worse than Keynesyan stimulus? Got any statistics on that? I'm sure you've compared and contrasted the options right?

How did Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy affect the employment rate? Can you point to anything positive from them other than the affect on the wallets of the wealthy?

Would it be a good idea to bury our heads in the sand and do nothing during a recession, just because neither theory can ever be proven to the satisfaction of the opposition? Would the ostrich technique be the best then? Or would actually trying to help the situation by doing something be better?

[adaher]

I've never endorsed supply side economics, which isn't even based on any real economic theory.

Now, models are not empiricism. The stimulus did not affect economic growth or the unemployment rate as predicted, therefore the model was wrong. THe CBO measured it a different way, going by what the difference in economic growth and employment would be, which makes their model untestable.

And Paul Krugman's arguments are faulty. He's cherry picking data and calling examples of non-austerity austerity. Austerity involves cuts in spending, not slower increases than Paul Krugman would like to see. Nor does austerity involve tax increases, that's not austerity, that's tax and spend, and it's a policy supported by Krugman and the President.

As of right now, the only real example of austerity is Estonia, and despite Krugman's protestations and further cherry picking of data, they are doing better than most other European states in terms of growth:

Estonia's growth so far in 2012: 7.6%.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/austerity-works

The Cato article also cites other countries doing austerity and doing well as a result.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I've never endorsed supply side economics, which isn't even based on any real economic theory.

Now, models are not empiricism. The stimulus did not affect economic growth or the unemployment rate as predicted, therefore the model was wrong. THe CBO measured it a different way, going by what the difference in economic growth and employment would be, which makes their model untestable.

And Paul Krugman's arguments are faulty. He's cherry picking data and calling examples of non-austerity austerity. Austerity involves cuts in spending, not slower increases than Paul Krugman would like to see. Nor does austerity involve tax increases, that's not austerity, that's tax and spend, and it's a policy supported by Krugman and the President.

As of right now, the only real example of austerity is Estonia, and despite Krugman's protestations and further cherry picking of data, they are doing better than most other European states in terms of growth:

Estonia's growth so far in 2012: 7.6%.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/austerity-works

The Cato article also cites other countries doing austerity and doing well as a result.Wait, is Estonia the only country "doing austerity" or are other countries doing it as well? You seem confused.

Also, what would be helpful would be, rather than bald assertions, some evidence based consideration of the facts.

As for cherry-picking, the "you forgot Estonia" is the worst kind of cherry picking, especially when it is and isn't the only country employing austerity.

For data based evaluations:

Quick take:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/estonian-rhapsdoy/

More involved discussion if you are interested in what is actually happening in Estonia in detail:

http://fistfulofeuros.net/afoe/estonias-long-awaited-recovery-may-still-be-delayed-yet-awhile/

If, however, like me you suspect that neo-classical steady state growth is some sort of metaphysical hocus pocus (or what they call a “necessary assumption to get the argument going”) with little empirical support, then you will not be terribly convinced by all those numbers blindly and slavishly churned out by the current generation of models, and will look more to the facts on the ground. In particular, when we come to the neo classical growth theories which normally underpin the sort of optimistic analyses we see of the Estonia situation (yes John, there are academic economists on both sides), I tend to think these are flawed due to some initial erroneous assumtions Solow himself made about the impact of population dynamics on growth (see this extended argument here), and I think it is important to remember here that Estonia, along with Hungary, Latvia and Bulgaria, is one of the countries on Europe’s Eastern flank where population as well as ageing is actually falling. So I suggest you treat any analysis which talks about a steady recovery in internal demand but does not explicitly explain how this point has been taken into account……. well I suggest you treat it with more than a pinch of salt.

[adaher]

Krugman's data is faulty. He includes countries that primarily did "austerity" by tax increase, or who didn't cut spending at all.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Krugman's data is faulty. He includes countries that primarily did "austerity" by tax increase, or who didn't cut spending at all.For example? Further, what was the Impact of removing such "faulty" data points from the trend line?

[adaher]

I'd have to manually remove every country, like Britain and France, that did not actually impose austerity.

The effect of removing such nations from the trendline is that you wouldn't have much data, since very few nations actually cut spending in the 2009-2011 period. And Greece doesn't count because their level of distress was so acute there was no plausible fiscal policy that would help them.

[Buck Godot]

I would give the President a neutral on the economy, while an overwhelmingly negative on the deficit.

When I think of what John mcCain would have done differently, the only big change would be no stimulus, so you figure we get the same result we have now, just with a somewhat lower deficit.

Would McCain have bailed out the auto industry? If not, GM and Crystler probably wouldn't be around any more along with a lot of their suppliers and that has got to hurt the economy.

[adaher]

Maybe. I don't think demand for cars would change, so logically GM and Chrysler's loss would be Ford's gain. Although I suspect McCain would have probably bailed them out.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'd have to manually remove every country, like Britain and France, that did not actually impose austerity.

The effect of removing such nations from the trendline is that you wouldn't have much data, since very few nations actually cut spending in the 2009-2011 period. And Greece doesn't count because their level of distress was so acute there was no plausible fiscal policy that would help them.Britain is not engaged in austerity? I think either you don't know what the word means or are intentionally using a tortured definition that you refuse to share.

[adaher]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/299233/show-me-savage-spending-cuts-europe-please-veronique-de-rugy

The UK has not cut spending. Nor has France or Italy.

[BrainGlutton]

Considering the obstacles confronting him in the form of the Republican party it is nothing short of miraculous. When Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader of the Senate, says his number one goal in Congress for the next four years, as of 2008, is to insure that Barak Obama would be a one term president, you must marvel at what has been accomplished. McConnell's goal was not to fight for improved ealth care, not to fight unemployment, not to end successfully the wars we were and are fighting, not to reduce taxes, not to balance the budget, not to improve the quality of education in the country, not to improve the economy etc. etc. etc. Rather his goal was to make the President of the U.S. as near a failure as he was able. Given the cooperation of the Republicans, that is, no cooperation, Obama is an extraordinary president.

This X10.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Maybe. I don't think demand for cars would change, so logically GM and Chrysler's loss would be Ford's gain.
Well, yes, assuming we imposed a protective tarriff on automobile imports. In all probability, GM and Chrysler's loss would have been Toyota and Honda's gain.

[adaher]

Maybe. Someone would have bought those plants, and Ford would have been primed to buy the best product lines and infrastructure. And competition to Ford would emerge, if new airlines can come up new car companies can as well. If there's demand for a product, a company will emerge to provide that product.

[BrainGlutton]

Had the President and his team (I include the party as part of the team) spent as much time and effort on the fiscal mess in which we're currently mired in . . .

It is not a fiscal mess. The federal budget deficit is not the problem.

[BrainGlutton]

If Santorum or Gingrich had been the nominee, I would have voted for Obama or Gary Johnson. Mitt Romney's resume makes him more than qualified to be President, and if past performance is predictive, he'll be a solid President.

If past performance is predictive, Romney's Admin would be even more the creature of the moneyed interests than W's was. That would not be good for anybody else and certainly not for the economy as a whole.

[adaher]

It is not a fiscal mess. The federal budget deficit is not the problem.

Cite?

Just kidding. The deficit is a symptom of a spending problem, plus poor economic growth. Economic growth will fix part of the problem, but not all of it. We also have a serious spending problem.

Normally, spending is about 21% of GDP. Revenues are normally around 18% of GDP. Right now spending is 25%, revenues are 15%. A return to normal economic growth and employment would get us back to 18% without any further policy actions. Now how do we get spending back to 21%?

[adaher]

If past performance is predictive, Romney's Admin would be even more the creature of the moneyed interests than W's was. That would not be good for anybody else and certainly not for the economy as a whole.

Was that a big problem in Massachusetts? Or is that an assumption based on his associations and his political party?

I've delved pretty deeply into his economic performance as governor of Massachusetts, but I know little about his decisionmaking process. So if Romney was especially beholden to moneyed interests while serving as governor, I'm open to hearing that case.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Maybe. Someone would have bought those plants, and Ford would have been primed to buy the best product lines and infrastructure. And competition to Ford would emerge, if new airlines can come up new car companies can as well. If there's demand for a product, a company will emerge to provide that product.
Only in high school economics. In the real world, we have to look at barriers to entry. How successful do you think New Car Company X is going to be with no dealer network?

Put another way, everyone would agree that the Big Three has been turning out shitty products for decades, right? So how come we don't have a half-dozen new American automakers? How come we don't have any?

[adaher]

A lot of the cars of the future are being made by smaller companies. One of the problems could be the excessive coziness of the Big Three with the government. I actually wonder if a competitor would even be allowed to bring an electric car to market that would actually compete with the Big Three.

Look what happened to Tucker.

[Fiddle Peghead]

We're better off how?

Did you completely ignore the OP? I count 6.5* positives vs 1 negative, for a success rate of a whopping 81%. Do you dispute any of these?

*inflation is dead, but treasuries yield is low

[BrainGlutton]

Cite?

Just kidding. The deficit is a symptom of a spending problem, plus poor economic growth. Economic growth will fix part of the problem, but not all of it. We also have a serious spending problem.

Normally, spending is about 21% of GDP. Revenues are normally around 18% of GDP. Right now spending is 25%, revenues are 15%. A return to normal economic growth and employment would get us back to 18% without any further policy actions. Now how do we get spending back to 21%?

Better than "how?" you should ask "why?". But, the "how" is obvious: If GDP increases -- which your scenario assumes -- and spending holds steady, then spending as percentage of GDP decreases.

[adaher]

Spending doesn't hold steady under the President's budget plan. At minimum, it keeps up with growth. Revenues are expected to return to historical levels by 2020, even without rescinding some of the Bush tax cuts. Spending, however, is projected to remain at a historically high 23-24%. That's unacceptable.

[BrainGlutton]

Spending doesn't hold steady under the President's budget plan. At minimum, it keeps up with growth. Revenues are expected to return to historical levels by 2020, even without rescinding some of the Bush tax cuts. Spending, however, is projected to remain at a historically high 23-24%. That's unacceptable.

Why? Other industrialized democracies spend much more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#International_government_spending_per_capita) The results are worth copying here.

[adaher]

They spend more, they also tax more, and the bulk of that burden falls on the middle class. If the public wants European levels of taxation and spending, that's fine, but the Democrats need to advocate for that, not just tax the rich more and run a huge deficit. Either the middle class must be taxed a lot more than they are now, and even more still than what they were before the Bush tax cuts, or spending must drop dramatically.

if we want to spend like Europe, we'll need a VAT and higher social insurance taxes.

[gamerunknown]

the bulk of that burden falls on the middle class

Cite?

while an overwhelmingly negative on the deficit.

What (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Annual%20Deficit%20Federal%20Government&year=2007_2017&sname=US&units=b&stack=1&size=s&bar=1&col=&spending0=161_459_1413_1293_1300_1327_901_668_610_649_612&source=a_a_a_a_a_b_b_b_b_b_b&legend=)?

[adaher]

France's VAT is 19.6%. Sweden's is 25%.

France's income tax rate on income of 26,000 Euros to 70,000 Euros is 30%.

France's gas tax is between 44 and 61 cents: per liter, not gallon.

Tax rates vary, but most European governments are funded primarily by VATs, social insurance taxes, and steep middle class tax rates.

Did you honestly think that the European style welfare states were funded mainly on the backs of the rich? You need me here to fight ignorance, apparently. That's not the type of claim that should require a cite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_France#Taxes_on_incomes

[Hentor the Barbarian]

France's VAT is 19.6%. Sweden's is 25%.

France's income tax rate on income of 26,000 Euros to 70,000 Euros is 30%.

France's gas tax is between 44 and 61 cents: per liter, not gallon.

Tax rates vary, but most European governments are funded primarily by VATs, social insurance taxes, and steep middle class tax rates.

Did you honestly think that the European style welfare states were funded mainly on the backs of the rich? You need me here to fight ignorance, apparently. That's not the type of claim that should require a cite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_France#Taxes_on_incomesIs that supposed to answer the question you were asked? This doesn't support your assertion as to where the burden falls. Can you provide that information, since you feel your job is to fight ignorance here?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Why? Other industrialized democracies spend much more. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#International_government_spending_per_capita) The results are worth copying here.

It's unacceptable because that is what it is. If it were acceptable, someone would have to get credit for it, and that someone would be Obama.

[adaher]

Is that supposed to answer the question you were asked? This doesn't support your assertion as to where the burden falls. Can you provide that information, since you feel your job is to fight ignorance here?

If you do not think that those taxes primarily burden the middle class, then I'd love to know how you figure that.

[Fiddle Peghead]

If you do not think that those taxes primarily burden the middle class, then I'd love to know how you figure that.

If you do think that those taxes primarily burden the middle class, then I would like to have a cite showing how you figure that.

[adaher]

Cite: the middle class tax rate is 30%.

Cite: The VAT is almost 20%

Cite: The gas tax is 44 to 60 cents per liter.

Okay, those are taxes on the rich. Let's do the same thing here and say they are taxes on the rich.

[adaher]

Sigh, sometimes I wonder why some things have to be spelled out when they are obvious:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

This pattern illustrates a general point made by Lindert(2004); countries in which government spending is a fairly high share of GDP have always relied on a mix of taxes that create relatively low distortion, with less progressivity, large exemptions for capital income, and so on. Meanwhile, Anglo-Saxon countries in which government spending is a relatively low share of GDP have historically relied on more progressive taxes.


Conclusion(adaher's words): progressive taxation requires low spending. High spending can only be supported by the broadest tax base possible.

There are charts too, comparing France's tax burdens to ours. The average Frenchman in the bottom 90% pays twice as much in taxes as the average American. The top 1% of Frenchmen pay about 50%, the top 1% of Americans pay 34%.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Sigh, sometimes I wonder why some things have to be spelled out when they are obvious:

Yes. I can see you have a problem with doing that, because I've asked you for cites in other threads and haven't gotten any.


http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

This pattern illustrates a general point....

I asked for cites for the info in your previous post. I don't know why you linking to this. I'm not saying you're wrong or your information is incorrect, I just don't know where it's coming from.

[adaher]

Yes. I can see you have a problem with doing that, because I've asked you for cites in other threads and haven't gotten any.

What gets me is that you guys have gotten too used to only hearing liberal viewpoints. So liberals can make statements of fact unchallenged, some of which are frankly laughable, and even the most obvious conservative claims demand cites, as if you've never heard them before. That is not exactly something I'd expect on the message forum of a site dedicated to fighting ignorance. Overtly political forums aren't as biased towards one side of the spectrum as this one is.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

What gets me is that you guys have gotten too used to only hearing liberal viewpoints. So liberals can make statements of fact unchallenged, some of which are frankly laughable, and even the most obvious conservative claims demand cites, as if you've never heard them before. That is not exactly something I'd expect on the message forum of a site dedicated to fighting ignorance. Overtly political forums aren't as biased towards one side of the spectrum as this one is.Look, you made a claim about the relative burden on the French middle class (truly you have a dizzying intellect) and kept pointing to the tax rates on the middle class and the VAT.

Don't you get that to support your claim of the relative burden, you have to show evidence of the relative burden? E.g. the burden of one compared to the other?

So, when asked for evidence, you come back with a doc about changes in progressivity over time. It's so far afield of your.claim that it smacks of post hoc desperation.

[Fiddle Peghead]

And again, no cite was provided. :rolleyes:

As for laughable claims, I don't make them, and what others do is of no relevance to this discussion. Nice "debating" with you.

[Airbeck]

So liberals can make statements of fact unchallenged, some of which are frankly laughable

Then challenge them. Oh that's right, you have been doing that in every thread. So how is anything going unchallenged?

and even the most obvious conservative claims demand cites

Every claim at the SDMB needs to have something to back it up, be it liberal or conservative, or any other flavor for that matter. We do not take any assertion as gospel if there is nothing to substantiate it. This is SOP for intelligent debating. If you want to add a fact to the debate, be prepared to back it up, or be prepared to have noone listen to you. This is not unique to this board or to liberals. Anyone that wants to engage in an intelligent debate should welcome this standard, otherwise how do you separate fiction from fact? Just take your word for it? Like you would take anyone else word for anything, right?

You really have a bad case of conservative persecution complex, you know that?

[adaher]

No, just making an observation. Cites are provided when requested, I just notice they aren't requested for most liberal claims. That's not persecution, it's just a recognition that apparently you guys don't hear many opposing arguments in the political threads. The science threads are obviously different and adhere to a higher standard.

And I did cite the French tax rates.

[Airbeck]

Cites are provided when requested, I just notice they aren't requested for most liberal claims.

Well then why don't you request them instead of crying about having them requested from you.

We aren't going to change the rules of the board just because you feel like everyone is picking on you.

The science threads are obviously different and adhere to a higher standard.

Why should they be held to a higher standard? Why are political discussions different? Why do you think its ok to post unsubstantiated things in political threads?

[Procrustus]

No, just making an observation. Cites are provided when requested, I just notice they aren't requested for most liberal claims. That's not persecution, it's just a recognition that apparently you guys don't hear many opposing arguments in the political threads. The science threads are obviously different and adhere to a higher standard.

And I did cite the French tax rates.

You cited the middle class tax rates. For all we know, the upper class tax rates are much higher, refuting your claim that the burden falls mostly on the middle class. But, you knew that.

[adaher]

I don't cry about it when it's an extraordinary claim. I bitch about it when it's an obvious one. It makes me wonder. Have the liberal Dopers really been under the impression for years that Europe's tax systems tax the middle class less than ours yet somehow provide such generous welfare states? Really? That should have been the most uncontroversial statement on this thread.

I'm not offended at being asked for a cite, I just wonder at the kinds of things you ask for cites for. And don't ask for cites for.

I don't need a rule change, I just wonder at what you guys don't know when really commonly known things are things you are unaware of. As I said in a previous thread, the internet has not replaced the need to learn and remember things.

[BrainGlutton]

What gets me is that you guys have gotten too used to only hearing liberal viewpoints. So liberals can make statements of fact unchallenged, some of which are frankly laughable, and even the most obvious conservative claims demand cites, as if you've never heard them before. That is not exactly something I'd expect on the message forum of a site dedicated to fighting ignorance.

Neither is it something that happens here. You are hallucinating it. To start with, the word "obvious" does not mean what you seem to think it does. Neither does the word "laughable."

It never ceases to amaze me how often RWs show themselves to have a world-view which is not merely detached from reality, but the inverse of reality, as we know it here on the planet with the blue sky.

[adaher]

You cited the middle class tax rates. For all we know, the upper class tax rates are much higher, refuting your claim that the burden falls mostly on the middle class. But, you knew that.

Upper class taxes are higher than in the US. But the proportion is not as high, and there are fewer rich people due to less income inequality and lower per capita income.
Bottom 90% tax rate US vs. France: 18-36
Top 1% tax rate US vs. France: about 35-60.

So middle class taxes are twice as high, upper class taxes less than twice as high. Still higher, but it points to a system reliant more on regressive taxes than progressive taxes.

[adaher]

Neither is it something that happens here. You are hallucinating it. To start with, the word "obvious" does not mean what you seem to think it does. Neither does the word "laughable."

I guess that's true from your point of view. I recently saw a rant about the rich that was so fact-free it was incredible. I didn't challenge it, what's the point? No one else did either, more likely because they agreed with it.

But don't worry. I'm watching you. I'll challenge the next weird claim one of you makes without a cite.

[Airbeck]

But don't worry. I'm watching you. I'll challenge the next weird claim one of you makes without a cite.

Yes, please do. That's a much better option than whining about getting asked for one yourself. Its also better than saying that everyone that doesn't think the way you do doesn't know obvious things:

I just wonder at what you guys don't know when really commonly known things are things you are unaware of

and its better than saying that your opponents don't feel the need to learn or remember things.

Do you really think that everyone that disagrees with you has sub-standard intelligence and/or intellectual laziness? Way to hold your opponents in contempt there. Makes me wonder why you're here posting so much if you have no respect at all for those that your conversing with.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Why keep "debating" with this person? In post #69 he supposedly provides "cites", when for all I know it's just a bunch of random characters he dreamed up. I mean, "about 35-60"!? What the does that even mean? Hell, the use of the word "about" ought to raise a red flag. Presumably, if he knows what he's talking about, he would have precise figures.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Upper class taxes are higher than in the US. But the proportion is not as high, and there are fewer rich people due to less income inequality and lower per capita income.
Bottom 90% tax rate US vs. France: 18-36
Top 1% tax rate US vs. France: about 35-60.

So middle class taxes are twice as high, upper class taxes less than twice as high. Still higher, but it points to a system reliant more on regressive taxes than progressive taxes.Again, your assertion was in regards to the relative burden on the middle class in France. Why are you comparing them to US rates?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Why keep "debating" with this person? In post #69 he supposedly provides "cites", when for all I know it's just a bunch of random characters he dreamed up. I mean, "about 35-60"!? What the does that even mean? Hell, the use of the word "about" ought to raise a red flag. Presumably, if he knows what he's talking about, he would have precise figures.I'm wondering the same. The problem is in part one of sheer volume.

[adaher]

I said about, because the figures in the cite don't break it down by 90% and 10%. they break it down by 90%, top 5-10%, top 5-1%, top 1%, and top .01%.

Which you'd know if you were actually interested in the cite.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Here's something really interesting, via Krugman, who says

Over at Angry Bear, Spencer shows that private GDP — GDP not including government spending — has risen almost exactly as fast under Obama as during the “Bush Boom”; of course, if government spending hadn’t been falling despite a weak economy, there would have been more jobs, and private spending would have risen faster.

Link to data at Angry Bear: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/07/private-real-gdp-in-recoveries.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FHzoh+%28Angry+Bear%29

[adaher]

Yeah, the President got unfair flack when he said, "The private sector is doing fine." Well, it's not doing fine, but it is recovering on schedule, about as fast as it did during the Bush years.

However, the public sector relies on the private sector for financing. The public sector is already spending at an unprecedentedly high rate. I'm not sure how the government could plausibly borrow more than it is now. According to the Reinhardt-Rogoff thesis, we're almost at the point where debt becomes a serious drag on growth:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14/too-much-debt-means-economy-can-t-grow-commentary-by-reinhart-and-rogoff.html

And I resolve to quit bitching and just cite.

[MemoryLeak]

Did you completely ignore the OP? I count 6.5* positives vs 1 negative, for a success rate of a whopping 81%. Do you dispute any of these?

*inflation is dead, but treasuries yield is low
Didn't realize we were restricted to considering only the facts the OP listed.

Gas prices twice the 2008 lows
65.7% of 16 and over participated in the labor force in 2009, current rate is 63.8% - so it's not just official unemployment is high, millions have just given up (BLS numbers)
It takes $106.58 to buy what cost $100 in 2008 (BLS calculator)
Home ownership rates at 15 year lows
Foreclosure rates are high and don't seem to be easing (some states are basket cases - Nevada, Florida, California
Home values have stagnated
Food stamp program is twice as big as it was 4 years ago
Social security $ out > in years before anyone predicted
Wages
Debt
Federal spending
Deficit

So I come up with a success rate of a whopping 32.5%.

The President's team took their eye off the ball.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Didn't realize we were restricted to considering only the facts the OP listed.

Gas prices twice the 2008 lows
65.7% of 16 and over participated in the labor force in 2009, current rate is 63.8% - so it's not just official unemployment is high, millions have just given up (BLS numbers)
It takes $106.58 to buy what cost $100 in 2008 (BLS calculator)
Home ownership rates at 15 year lows
Foreclosure rates are high and don't seem to be easing (some states are basket cases - Nevada, Florida, California
Home values have stagnated
Food stamp program is twice as big as it was 4 years ago
Social security $ out > in years before anyone predicted
Wages
Debt
Federal spending
Deficit

So I come up with a success rate of a whopping 32.5%.

The President's team took their eye off the ball.Wow! From that list, it almost seems like Obama has caused some kind of catastrophic collapse of the financial and housing sectors!

Good catch.

[Airbeck]

Wow! From that list, it almost seems like Obama has caused some kind of catastrophic collapse of the financial and housing sectors!

Good catch.

Not only that, but evidently the president has the power to dictate the wages that private companies pay their employees. I did not know the president had this power.

Good to know, now I know who to contact when I want to ask for a raise.

:rolleyes:

[MemoryLeak]

You cited the middle class tax rates. For all we know, the upper class tax rates are much higher, refuting your claim that the burden falls mostly on the middle class. But, you knew that.
Actually, the United States has the most progressive tax rates of the OECD nations (spreadsheet (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/422013187855)). And it's not even close.

Since there are so many more middle-income earners than high-income earners and there's little progressivity in the tax rates, the burden falls on the middle-income earners.

[adaher]

Meanwhile, a coal mine in Ohio just shut down due to environmental regulations:

http://www.timesleaderonline.com/page/content.detail/id/540240.html

A theoretical model says Obama has created or saved X number of jobs. But in the real world where we can see his policies empirically, we find that he's actually intentionally killed a lot of jobs.

[MemoryLeak]

Wow! From that list, it almost seems like Obama has caused some kind of catastrophic collapse of the financial and housing sectors!

Good catch.

Thank you. :)

[MemoryLeak]

Not only that, but evidently the president has the power to dictate the wages that private companies pay their employees. I did not know the president had this power.

Good to know, now I know who to contact when I want to ask for a raise.

:rolleyes:
So I guess if I scroll up, I'll see similar insightful observations about the items on the OP's list.

[Airbeck]

So I guess if I scroll up, I'll see similar insightful observations about the items on the OP's list.

I was replying to you. You blamed Obama for the state of wages in the country.

This is insane. Just pointing that out. But go ahead and try to deflect from that. Its understandable given how ridiculous that was.

[Airbeck]

Thank you. :)

I'm pretty sure that was a sarcastic post. Seems like you may have missed that.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Didn't realize we were restricted to considering only the facts the OP listed.


Seriously? Isn't that how things work here? The OP makes an assertion, and you respond to it. If you disagree, you offer evidence to the contrary. I see you've done that now. I'm not a mind-reader, you know.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I'm pretty sure that was a sarcastic post. Seems like you may have missed that.My wife tells me that sometimes I am too subtle. On Facebook, I've noticed that fairly often people whose position I am opposing or mocking "like" my posts.

For instance, after seeing a spate of "let's support Chick Fil A posts", I grabbed a pic of Beaker (the Muppet) and captioned it "Don't meep with Beaker." People on both sides of the issue liked it.

I didn't think anyone could miss the sarcasm of the post you referenced, though.

[Truman Burbank]

It is, of course, simplistic in the extreme to call this "Obama's" economy. He predicted that by the end of 4 years many in the electorate would forget what a mess he inherited, and so it is. Given the opposition he's faced, I think he's done well. Several items in the OP have no place being there, such as gasoline prices. Would anyone in the forum care to make the case that Obama (or Bush) directly sets or influences gasoline prices at the pump?

[MemoryLeak]

I'm pretty sure that was a sarcastic post. Seems like you may have missed that.
Wow! You don't feel a breeze or anything?

[Airbeck]

It is, of course, simplistic in the extreme to call this "Obama's" economy. He predicted that by the end of 4 years many in the electorate would forget what a mess he inherited, and so it is. Given the opposition he's faced, I think he's done well. Several items in the OP have no place being there, such as gasoline prices. Would anyone in the forum care to make the case that Obama (or Bush) directly sets or influences gasoline prices at the pump?

Yeah, that and wages too. I really want to know how the president is able to dicate peoples wages. I must have missed that in civics class.

[Airbeck]

Wow! You don't feel a breeze or anything?

Oh wow, now you're claiming that you were being sarcastic in response to his sarcasm?

Oh lord :rolleyes:

What exactly was funny about your response then?

Ok, then I was being sarcastic in response to your sarcastic reply to his sarcasm.

Your move ...

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Yeah, that and wages too. I really want to know how the president is able to dicate peoples wages. I must have missed that in civics class.I actually don't mind using wages as an indicator of the economic health of the country, just like average household income.

Of course, how much control the president has over these things is still debatable, but we seem to vote as if it matters.

[MemoryLeak]

Oh wow, now you're claiming that you were being sarcastic in response to his sarcasm?

Oh lord :rolleyes:

What exactly was funny about your response then?

Ok, then I was being sarcastic in response to your sarcastic reply to his sarcasm.

Your move ...
You make me smile. :)

[Hentor the Barbarian]

You make me smile. :)Since we're letting others know, you have yet to make me do so.

[MemoryLeak]

I actually don't mind using wages as an indicator of the economic health of the country, just like average household income.

Of course, how much control the president has over these things is still debatable, but we seem to vote as if it matters.
In principal, I agree with you. But he can lead and he can bully. My issue with the President is lack of leadership. The President is not the boss of everyone (and therefore, arguments along the line of "if everyone would just do what he wants, we'll be fine" are silly - if that's the only way the president can lead, then he needs to join the Army). I realize that since 2011 he has had an unfriendly Congress (and even without the Republican veto in the Senate, his own party ain't exactly got his back). No excuse. Lead. Was he dealt a lousy hand? Absolutely. Get over it.

I believe his administration believed this would all just work itself out the way it always had in the past. And if it had, this would be a laugher. But it didn't.

The only ideas I hear are we just need to spend some more money (which sounds suspiciously like the prescription for education). So if you ain't got any ideas, let's try the next guy.

[MemoryLeak]

Since we're letting others know, you have yet to make me do so.
You make me sad. :(

[adaher]

Normally you don't see an administration actively obstructing job creation. The story I linked to out of Ohio is not unique.

Prioritizing the environment over job growth is a defensible policy, so long as that is actually your policy and you are honest about that policy. Either the president doesn't understand the tradeoffs involved in his policies, or he's lying about jobs being his #1 priority.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Normally you don't see an administration actively obstructing job creation. The story I linked to out of Ohio is not unique.

Prioritizing the environment over job growth is a defensible policy, so long as that is actually your policy and you are honest about that policy. Either the president doesn't understand the tradeoffs involved in his policies, or he's lying about jobs being his #1 priority.

Your link places blame on Obama for something referred to as the "war on coal" or on the "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for causing a downturn in coal demand." Since there are no specific details offered, I'm not sure how to gauge the accuracy of these statements. But assuming for the sake of argument that they are true, this doesn't necessarily contradict Obama's priority of job creation. What's that logical fallacy called, the excluded middle or something? It is possible to want to create jobs -- and surely you don't think Obama is against this, right? -- and at the same time be concerned about the environment.

[Jas09]

The story I linked to out of Ohio is not unique.

Prioritizing the environment over job growth is a defensible policy, so long as that is actually your policy and you are honest about that policy. Either the president doesn't understand the tradeoffs involved in his policies, or he's lying about jobs being his #1 priority.The story you linked to is, IMO, bullshit. Coal mining is hurting because we (meaning the US) found a whole bunch of natural gas. That operation closed because one of their major sub-contracters went bankrupt, at least as I understand it. That Robert Murray would decide to blame it on Obama and the EPA is neither surprising nor compelling.

[Airbeck]

You make me smile. :)

That's your move? Just knocking over your king? Ok, fair enough.

So have you asked Obama for a raise yet?

[adaher]

It is, but you can't make both your #1 priority. They don't always come into conflict, but sometimes they do, and when they do, a choice has to be made. Current administration policy seems to lean more towards environmental concerns than job growth. Which again is defensible policy, but apparently not something the administration wants to admit to in this political environment.

[adaher]

The story you linked to is, IMO, bullshit. Coal mining is hurting because we (meaning the US) found a whole bunch of natural gas. That operation closed because one of their major sub-contracters went bankrupt, at least as I understand it. That Robert Murray would decide to blame it on Obama and the EPA is neither surprising nor compelling.

If that was the only example, I could concede your point. But what about Keystone? I know there are legitimate reasons holding it up relating to eminent domain issues, but the administration didn't have to kill it. The courts can do that if property owners are getting screwed.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

The story you linked to is, IMO, bullshit. Coal mining is hurting because we (meaning the US) found a whole bunch of natural gas. That operation closed because one of their major sub-contracters went bankrupt, at least as I understand it. That Robert Murray would decide to blame it on Obama and the EPA is neither surprising nor compelling.I was just about to post pretty much this, and to ask adaher if he could specify exactly how environmental regs had impacted that business. The story certainly did not come close to doing so.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Current administration policy seems to lean more towards environmental concerns than job growth.

Dare I ask for some evidence to back this up?

[adaher]

http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/luminant-estimates-cuts-to-meet-epa-rule/article_c65f95df-6f19-5064-9552-c766fe787a4f.html

Unless courts rule in its favor, Luminant energy announced plans Monday to cut some 500 jobs by closing two coal-fired generating units in Titus.

"This would be devastating to the Northeast Texas economy - not just Titus County," Titus County Chamber of Commerce Director Faustine Curry said of the losses from the regional employer and taxpayer. "In Titus County, we have the power plant, the mines."

The company said the job losses and plant shutdowns represent its best shot at meeting a January deadline to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/11/07/obama-epa-commits-political-frackicide-in-ca/

Over the past three years, the approval rate of new permits for oil and gas “fracking” wells in California has fallen by 90 percent — from 71 to 7 out of every 100 permit applications. “Fracking” involves the high-power injection of water, sand and proprietary chemicals into wells. According to a fracking documentary Web site, “The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well.”

The California permit falloff is mainly due to tighter rules requested by the U.S. Congress when Democrats ran both houses under House Speaker (now Democrat Leader) Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The rules have enforced by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency since spring 2010. The rule enforcement was not altered after Republicans took over the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2011, while Democrats kept control of the U.S. Senate, maintaining Reid as majority leader.

The Oct. 19 issue of Bloomberg business news online reported that the State Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources approved 37 of 52 permit applications in 2009 (71 percent). It then approved 27 out of 100 applications in 2010 (27 percent). But it approved only 14 out of 199 applications thus far in 2011 (7 percent).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/coal-miners-say-environmental-rules-killing-jobs-hard-hit-appalachia/

Michael Fox can literally see where his job ends.

The 14-year veteran of the West Virginia coal mining industry is about a year and a half out from finishing his current project, and he can see the boundaries of the site. He doesn't know whether there will be any work left for him after that, since a wave of environmental regulation has put his firm's other permits on hold.

"Unless we can get a permit, we can't extend the job no farther," he said. "Right now, I don't know if I can make it or not."

Fox, who is married and has three kids, was among the hundreds of Appalachian miners who rallied in Washington, D.C., Wednesday in a bid to pressure the Obama administration to loosen restrictions on coal mining in their states. They say the rules amount to a de facto freeze on a chunk of the industry, jeopardizing jobs in one of the most economically depressed parts of the country.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/14/coal-miners-say-environmental-rules-killing-jobs-hard-hit-appalachia/#ixzz22KMgTZBM

And I'm sure I don't need to link to the administration's slow walking of offshore drilling permits.

[adaher]

and it's not just in the energy sector:

At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts manufacturing executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government “throws sand into the gears of progress.”

Daley said he did not have many good answers, appearing to throw up his hands in frustration at what he called “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”

“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-houses-daley-seeks-balance-in-outreach-meeting-with-manufacturers/2011/06/16/AG177yXH_story.html

[Jas09]

If that was the only example, I could concede your point. But what about Keystone? I know there are legitimate reasons holding it up relating to eminent domain issues, but the administration didn't have to kill it. The courts can do that if property owners are getting screwed.I'm not sure that "kill it" is accurate, but I do agree that a Democratic administration is much more likely to support environmental agencies concerns when dealing with energy production. When this is in tension with job creation they will almost certainly give more weight to the environmental aspects than a GOP administration will.

As you rightly said, each case should be considered in it's own right. But I don't think that support for environmental regulation somehow invalidates efforts to encourage job creation. Clearly if a company was going to create jobs hunting endangered animals we would expect the government to stop them. Pointing to this as "actively obstructing job creation" is, at a minimum, misleading.

But yeah, I readily concede that Obama is far more likely to support strong environmental regulation in the face of industry pressure than Romney is, even if that causes a reduction in employment.

On preview: yeah, coal miners and coal-fired power plant operators are in a bad spot right now. For the first time in a long time (maybe ever?) the marginal cost of a unit of electricity is tied to the cost of NG, not coal. So coal plants are being shut down left and right. This doesn't really have that much to do with the EPA, although particulate and smog regulations haven't helped (and of course potential CO2 regulations - but that hurts NG too).

The fracking rules are a great example of what I outlined above - in cases where there are environmental concerns about energy production Democrats are far more likely to slow things down to consider the concerns than Republicans are. Point conceded there. Whether that is good or bad obviously depends on your environmental politics.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Thanks for the links, and I will say that I have no doubt certain environmental policies might result in job losses. But as we all know, Obama pushed for and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the express purpose of saving and creating jobs. This might have been a wonderful idea, or the possibly the worst legislation of that past 100 years. But it is more than enough evidence to show that job creation is a top Obama priority.

ETA: reply to adaher in post #107.

[adaher]

I actually think it can be justified, I'm a libertarian but also very open to sensible environmental regulation. I just think the administration should be more open about its priorities. And take responsibility for at least a small part of the unemployment problem. This is something the President has control over. And really, it might have been a good idea to wait on these regulations. The greatest recession since the Great Depression was probably not the best time.

[adaher]

Thanks for the links, and I will say that I have no doubt certain environment policies might result in job loss. But as we all know, Obama pushed for and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the express purpose of saving and creating jobs. This might have been a wonderful idea, or the possibly the worst legislation of that past 100 years. But it is more than enough evidence to show that job creation is a top Obama priority.

A top priority, but THE top? Especially given how much of the stimulus went to green projects, many of dubious quality?

Actually, I suspect he hasn't set priorities, I think his administration functions on a pretty ad hoc basis with the EPA and other agencies pretty much acting on their own. The President is not personally aware of most of the rules passed, and I doubt even his cabinet secretaries know about most of this stuff. here's a good example:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0811/call_uncle_sam_5c130fdd-0e34-4b04-99e1-3d923ea3919e.html

At Wednesday’s town hall in Atkinson, Ill., a local farmer who said he grows corn and soybeans expressed his concerns to President Barack Obama about “more rules and regulations” — including those concerning dust, noise and water runoff — that he heard would negatively affect his business.

The president, on day three of his Midwest bus tour, replied: “If you hear something is happening, but it hasn’t happened, don’t always believe what you hear.”

When the room broke into soft laughter, the president added, “No — and I’m serious about that.”

Saying that “folks in Washington” like to get “all ginned up” about things that aren’t necessarily happening (“Look what’s comin’ down the pipe!”), Obama’s advice was simple: “Contact USDA.”

“Talk to them directly. Find out what it is that you’re concerned about,” Obama told the man. “My suspicion is, a lot of times, they’re going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded.”

Call Uncle Sam. Sensible advice, but perhaps the president has forgotten just how difficult it can be for ordinary citizens to get answers from the government.

When this POLITICO reporter decided to take the president's advice and call the USDA for an answer to the Atkinson town hall attendee's question, I found myself in a bureaucratic equivalent of hot potato — getting bounced from the feds to Illinois state agriculture officials to the state farm bureau.

Here's a rundown of what happened when I started by calling the USDA's general hotline to inquire about information related to the effects of noise and dust pollution rules on Illinois farmers:


I won't paste the rather long process of finding out exactly what was going on, but the controversy did get the EPA to "debunk" the rumor by not imposing new dust regulations. And yes, the EPA was actually in charge of that, the President didn't know that. he thought it was the USDA.

Now if I was the President, I'd make regulatory reform a top priority ASAP. The President should be able to understand what's going on in his administration.

[Fiddle Peghead]

A top priority, but THE top? Especially given how much of the stimulus went to green projects, many of dubious quality?

I'd say that in the thick of a presidential race, and the unemployment rate what it is right now, if job creation isn't his #1 priority right now he's a fool! But in all seriousness, I don't know if it's his top priority, or third, or what, but would certainly think it's up there.

[MemoryLeak]

Back to the question by the OP: Obama's economic record - positive or negative?

I think the answer to this question is provided by the President's own campaign. I spend about half my time in a small battleground state (the President won the state last time and it currently leans towards the President, but it's possible for Governor Romney to take the state). Every television ad the President's campaign runs is an attack ad. There's no enumeration of accomplishments, no roadmap to the future, no "see, look what I did." Every ad focuses on something the Governor's done that's really, really bad.

If the President's campaign believed there was a positive record, you sure wouldn't know it by his campaign here - in a blue-leaning state.

Couple of side notes:

The Governor's ads, until recently, we uniformly positive - outlining his accomplishments and talking about what he will do when he's President, not evening mentioning the President. I've noticed that an ad responding to the attack ads has shown up. It's all very factual and dispassionate, but it does seem to provide more evidence that negative campaigning works.

The other thing I'm a little surprised by is that I don't see any PAC ads. These are all run by the campaigns (or at least I've decided that if the candidate says he approves of the ad, it's bought by the campaign itself).

Disclaimer: I'm normally on a DVR, so I could be running right past hours and hours of positive messages from the President's campaign and hours and hours of attack ads from the Governor.

[XT]

Clearly it's positive, since the economy is in much better shape today than when he took over from Bush. That's a no-brainer, IMHO, and you need to be in some serious denial to attempt to, er, deny that. That said, the economy kind of sucks, and it's definitely going to be one of the key issues in this election. How much (or how little) any president actually has over the economy is debatable, except for the public's perception that they SHOULD have such control, and that their decisions directly impact how it's doing during their term. Undeniably (:p) the public THINKS they are responsible, and since they actually were stupid enough to run for that office, I suppose they have to take the blame along with the credit...

[Really Not All That Bright]

The Governor's ads, until recently, we uniformly positive - outlining his accomplishments and talking about what he will do when he's President, not evening mentioning the President. I've noticed that an ad responding to the attack ads has shown up. It's all very factual and dispassionate, but it does seem to provide more evidence that negative campaigning works.
You mean... until recently, when he became the presumptive nominee, and was no longer campaigning against people who weren't the POTUS?

[MemoryLeak]

You mean... until recently, when he became the presumptive nominee, and was no longer campaigning against people who weren't the POTUS?
I don't recall any ads from either campaign this winter or early spring; they may have run some, but they certainly didn't register on me. This is a caucus state and that may have something to do with it. Even though it was one of the earlier states, it was kind of a foregone conclusion. The President's and Governor's ads have been running since late spring.

It's jarring to me for a couple of reasons.

Until recently, the Senate race in this battleground state was fairly tight. Even though the Democrat nominee had some challenges (self-inflicted), the campaign was running only positive ads (given the ads only, it would be impossible to determine who the opponent is or if the election is even contested). For a bit they did run ads that called out the problem and tried to assert it was all much ado about nothing - but no mention of the opposition. Now they're running tear jerker ads - they remind me of the humane society ones - where a constituent recalls the nominee's public service to point of literally tearing up, but nothing about the other candidate. Nothing's working though. I can't recall a single ad from the Republican nominee.

I spend the other half of my time in a state that's so blue the President could be caught with any number of live boys and dead girls and still walk away with the state. So no ads at all. I head out west and it never stops - and we still have months to go. I guess the handful of electors we have out here matter.

[gamerunknown]

Still higher, but it points to a system reliant more on regressive taxes than progressive taxes.

Actually, the United States has the most progressive tax rates of the OECD nations

This is the cite that could have provided evidence that would serve to demonstrate such a claim. However, adaher did not define the middle class (within a standard deviation of median income?) and demonstrate that their contributions to state revenue were disproportionate to their population. Not to mention this cite does not address the upper centile, which it seems would have a greater share of the income than Poland or Italy and probably a lower tax burden.

I actually don't mind using wages as an indicator of the economic health of the country, just like average household income.

They can't be divorced from PPP per capita, really.

if that's the only way the president can lead, then he needs to join the Army

He is the head of the army.

[DoctorJ]

The story you linked to is, IMO, bullshit. Coal mining is hurting because we (meaning the US) found a whole bunch of natural gas. That operation closed because one of their major sub-contracters went bankrupt, at least as I understand it. That Robert Murray would decide to blame it on Obama and the EPA is neither surprising nor compelling.
This is SOP in the coal industry right now. A friend of mine got laid off from the mines earlier this year, and when they rounded them all up to tell them they were being let go they told them to think about this when they went to vote this fall.

There's no doubt that you can trace some of those job losses to Obama's actions, but only in the sense that he has a functioning EPA. During the Bush years you could get even the most obviously environmentally destructive permits rubber-stamped, and now you can't. And that's not something you can put off while you're in a recession--the mountains and streams and wildlife that the coal companies are more than happy to destroy aren't just going to come back when the economy picks up.

Coal jobs are going, it's been obvious for a decade that they'd eventually be going, and they're not coming back. If my region were smart we'd have been planning for that and diversifying our economy, but we've been too busy giving the coal industry everything it could possibly want.

Of course, there's also the impact of gas drilling and the fact that we had a ridiculously warm winter. But no, it's all Chairman Barry's fault.

[adaher]

But is the coal industry going away due to market forces, or because the government has simply decided they don't like coal?

[Procrustus]

But is the coal industry going away due to market forces, or because the government has simply decided they don't like coal?

Market forces

[adaher]

Then why the need to deny permits if the market is already making coal obsolete?

[Ludovic]

Then why the need to deny permits if the market is already making coal obsolete?Let's assume that many forms and locations for coal mining are truly environmentally destructive for the sake of this argument. If this is the case, then less of it due to market forces is good, but even less of it due to market forces AND regulation is even better.

[adaher]

Coal mining by definition is environmentally destructive, and very dangerous work to boot. And an expressed policy of closing coal mines and denying new mining permits would be defensible. If that was a transparent policy. It looks like a stealth policy to me.

[Truman Burbank]

But is the coal industry going away due to market forces, or because the government has simply decided they don't like coal?

Probably because you don't know very much about it, thus have to ask questions like this on a message board. Then you decide it looks like a 'stealth policy':rolleyes:

[Fiddle Peghead]

Back to the question by the OP: Obama's economic record - positive or negative?

I think the answer to this question is provided by the President's own campaign.

[edit]

If the President's campaign believed there was a positive record, you sure wouldn't know it by his campaign here - in a blue-leaning state.


That's all well and good, but it could simply be evidence that the Obama campaign thinks attack ads are more effective. It doesn't really prove anything.

[adaher]

Probably because you don't know very much about it, thus have to ask questions like this on a message board. Then you decide it looks like a 'stealth policy':rolleyes:

I know enough to know that there's no need for the government to regulate out of existence what the market is already making obsolete.

I also know enough to know that the EPA under this administration has a habit of exceeding its legal authority:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74414.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._EPA

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html

[Chronos]

People are still going to continue to consume energy, and at about the same rate. If we're not getting as much energy from coal as we used to, that means we're getting more from gas, or wind, or nuclear, or whatever. And that increased usage of those other sources means we've also got job creation going on in those sectors. Maybe some of those coal miners will have to retrain as gas drillers, and I suppose that's inconvenient in the very short term, but long term, the closure of coal mines doesn't really tell you anything.

[adaher]

We are getting more assuming the price stays the same. If the price of energy rises, that usually means supply has dwindled, or demand has increased.

[Really Not All That Bright]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74414.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._EPA

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-administration-in-contempt-over-gulf-drill-ban-judge-rules.html
The first ruling is on appeal. The second has nothing to do with the EPA "exceeding its legal authority". Shall I address the third?

[adaher]

How do you figure the second ruling doesn't involve the EPA exceeding its legal authority?

[Really Not All That Bright]

The same way I figure the EPA Administrator isn't overstepping her authority when she eats a banana: it patently has nothing to do with the limits of the agency's authority. I can only assume you googled "EPA lawsuit" and posted the first three results without reading them.

The case was about whether people subject to CWA compliance orders have the right to appeal directly to the courts, not about whether the EPA overstepped its authority. It's explained rather well in your own link, which you might want to consider reading.

[adaher]

We just disagree on definitions then. To me, claiming you have the right to just impose judgments without appeal is exceeding your authority.

[Really Not All That Bright]

No, that would be exceeding your authority. That's why I told you to read the case, because that's not what happened: the EPA argued that the petitioners didn't have the right to appeal a compliance order unless or until the EPA instituted enforcement proceedings.

[TheSlapIsBack]

Any objective person would find it impossible to give him a positive score. This is supported by democratic voter registration nationwide is DOWN- Obama fundraising down- Democratic enthusiasm is DOWN.

Incidentally these characteristics were present after Bushs 2nd term. I am not even going to waste my time citing all of the factual data that also supports that he has done bad. The facts above support that on their own.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Any objective person would find it impossible to give him a positive score. This is supported by democratic voter registration nationwide is DOWN- Obama fundraising down- Democratic enthusiasm is DOWN.

Incidentally these characteristics were present after Bushs 2nd term. I am not even going to waste my time citing all of the factual data that also supports that he has done bad. The facts above support that on their own.Wait a sec. Your position is that Obama's economic performance has been negative, and your evidence for this is an assertion that Democratic enthusiasm is DOWN? Further, you'll brook no additional discussion?

An objective person might examine data related to the performance of the economy.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Additionally, is the meaningful comparison really between Obama 2008 and Obama 2012? Didn't something happen between now and then that would make it more difficult for people to donate money? Something just before the election of 2008? Hmmmm, it's on the tip of my total economic meltdown.

When I look at the fundraising numbers between Obama and Romney, it seems like Obama's doing just fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2012_United_States_presidential_election