Obama Economy Worse Than 1970s

[Guest]

Written on May 28, 2011 by Floyd Brown

The worst economic conditions in recent memory were during the Jimmy Carter era of stagflation. Stagflation was a term coined in the 1970s to describe high unemployment with high inflation. Stagflation is back. Translation: America’s middle class is getting poorer; a record number of middle class workers are out of work. If you are lucky enough to have a job, your wages aren’t going up, but you are facing higher prices for everything.

“Recent data suggests that the current economic recovery is both sluggish and slowing with unemployment stubbornly high,” this from a page one story in Investor’s Business Daily.

The Obama/ Bernanke partnership has been a bust.

The Fed is winding down Ben Bernanke’s experiment in money printing called “QE2”. He trumpets his success saying that QE2 has pointed the U.S. economy “in the right direction.” But did it really? It turns out that QE2 has created maybe 700,000 full-time jobs, but at a cost of about $850,000 for each job.

All QE2 did was create a boom in the stock market. Wall Street bankers reaped millions while the average investors barely madeback some small amount of the money that they lost during the 2008 crash.

We believe this boom is an easy money mirage, as MarketWatch.com reports, “But even the stock market boom hasn’t been what it appears. An analysis shows that most of the rise in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index under QE2 has simply been a result of the decline in the dollar in which shares are measured.Measured in hard currencies, the stock market boom has been much less impressive. In Swiss francs, the S&P has risen by just 8.4% since Aug. 27. In currencies like the Swedish krone and Australian dollars it’s even less. Measured in gold, the S&P 500 is up just 4.5%.”

QE2 has had little visible effect on the real economy. Over the same period, the number of part-time workers has gone down by 600,000. In other words, we’ve basically shifted 600,000 or 700,000 workers from part-time jobs to full-time jobs.

Marketwatch.com continues: “The percentage of the population in work is actually lower today – 58.4%, compared to 58.5% last August. The percentage of the work force in actual work, the so-called ‘participation rate,’ has fallen by half a percentage point.”

Housing is no better because of QE2, April housing starts fell 11%. Marketwatch.com says, “Housing is double-dipping. According to the National Association of Realtors, the average price of an ‘existing’ home was $177,300 in August, just before QE2. Now it’s $163,700 – or 8% less.Economic growth has slowed. It was 2.6% last summer. It’s a miserable 1.8% now.Meanwhile inflation has risen, from 1.2% before QE2 to 3.1% now.”

We all wish for better news, but Obama’s policies are pointing us in the wrong direction. Regulation of business is growing. One CEO of a mining firm we talked with said he is looking for new projects abroad. “I have been fighting for nearly a decade to open a new mine in Montana, and at every turn the government places roadblocks in my way. How am I to create any jobs?”

If Obama’s tax policies are enacted then we could see marginal income tax rates of 60% in some states. Obama clings to socialism and his new programs in healthcare and welfare. They all retard growth. Unemployment taxes are at record highs in most states and this further depresses hiring.

The Fed has invested nearly $2 trillion in Treasury debt since 2008. The investment hasn’t paid off, but when the relentless buying of US Treasury debt ends, we have no similar experience to guide us. One result could be even further collapse and a full blown depression.

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/obama-economy-worse-than-1970s

[Dr. Shane]

I don't know if I buy into all of that. My portfolio is up significantly. Wages were also up this past month. The recovery is slow, no doubt. Unemployment is high too. But somethings are changing. Let's pray for a speedy recovery even if it means Obama gets the credit and gets re-elected.

[bonnie]

Ah, that 'unexpected' bad economic news

Rick Moran

Michael Barone:

As megablogger Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, has noted with amusement, the word "unexpectedly" or variants thereon keep cropping up in mainstream media stories about the economy.

After listing a half dozen examples from recent economic reports, Barone offers an explanation:

Mainstream media may finally be catching up. "The latest economic numbers have not been good," David Leonhardt wrote in the May 26 New York Times. "Another report showed that economic growth at the start of the year was no faster than the Commerce Department initially reported -- 'a real surprise,' said Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics."

Which raises some questions. As Instapundit reader Gordon Stewart, quoted by Reynolds on May 17, put it, "How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? At some point, shouldn't they be required to state the foundation for their expectations?"

One answer is that many in the mainstream media have been cheerleading for Barack Obama. They and he both naturally hope for a strong economic recovery. After all, Obama can't keep blaming the economic doldrums on George W. Bush forever.

I'm confident that any comparison of economic coverage in the Bush years and the coverage now would show far fewer variants of the word "unexpectedly" in stories suggesting economic doldrums.

It's obviously going to be hard to achieve the unacknowledged goal of many mainstream journalists -- the president's re-election -- if the economic slump continues. So they characterize economic setbacks as unexpected, with the implication that there's still every reason to believe that, in Herbert Hoover's phrase, prosperity is just around the corner.

Most mainstream media business reporters know little about business, and a lot about street gossip and the "expectations game." They have their favorite prognosticators for a wide variety of indicators whose estimates may vary wildly from source to source. A JP Morgan analyst might have far different numbers on expectations for durable goods from month to month than another analyst working for a different Wall Street firm. While it is true that there are some consensus guesses about economic yardsticks, those estimates vary from news outlet to news outlet and are based on different guesses from a wide variety of economists.

So when reporters say that a certain economic number is "unexpected." they are basically saying that it was unexpected to them based on the sources they rely upon to predict what is happening.

What all this "unexpected" bad news says is that the experts are flummoxed as to why Obama's economic policies aren't working according to their estimates. The textbooks are saying one thing while the real world economy is doing something else. In this light, while bias may play a role in how the bad news is reported, why that news is "unexpected" is more a product of ignorance than partisanship.

[lazarus]

Thank God for QE2 the world would still be in deep depression if there was no economic stimulus. Stimulus saved many families from going under. Remember the Great Depression?

[Tom Wetmore]

I don't know if I buy into all of that. My portfolio is up significantly. Wages were also up this past month. The recovery is slow, no doubt. Unemployment is high too. But somethings are changing. Let's pray for a speedy recovery even if it means Obama gets the credit and gets re-elected.

Shhhh!... you are pulling back the curtain on the political propaganda manipulation of economic reality...

It is the cardinal rule of voting - people invariably vote their pocketbook. So political manipulation of economic information becomes primary political propaganda strategy.

Nobody wants blame for the bad and everyone wants to take credit for the good. So those wanting to be in power must paint a picture of a bad economy and tag it on those they want to unseat. If the economy is perceived as good the incumbent has the edge to win. So the incumbent has to work hard to paint a positive economic picture.

We saw this play out seriously in the last presidential election. The economy had already imploded, but supreme efforts were made to delay the perception of that reality, to prop up the economy and to create a perception that everything was OK. As soon as Obama was elected, the props got knocked out and the propaganda machine shifted gear to lay all the blame at his feet for what had already been the reality. Now he is blamed for not fixing the mess he inherited fast enough. But the opposition political machinery also has to sustain that perception of bad things not getting better until 2012. So the strategy is to sabotage any recover efforts by delay, obstruction and obfuscation. It's stealing the chicken from every pot strategy...

Remember the clearly stated Republican goal to insure that Obama fail no matter what?

[Dr. Shane]

As soon as Obama was elected, the props got knocked out and the propaganda machine shifted gear to lay all the blame at his feet for what had already been the reality.

[Guest]

So when reporters say that a certain economic number is "unexpected." they are basically saying that it was unexpected to them based on the sources they rely upon to predict what is happening.

What all this "unexpected" bad news says is that the experts are flummoxed as to why Obama's economic policies aren't working according to their estimates. The textbooks are saying one thing while the real world economy is doing something else. In this light, while bias may play a role in how the bad news is reported, why that news is "unexpected" is more a product of ignorance than partisanship.

That's exactly what it is! Those two guys hit the nail right on the head.

[bonnie]

Shhhh!... you are pulling back the curtain on the political propaganda manipulation of economic reality...

It is the cardinal rule of voting - people invariably vote their pocketbook. So political manipulation of economic information becomes primary political propaganda strategy.

You are right,Many vote for the party putting money in their pocket.

I have a neigbor ,both he and his wife are on SSD.The disability part is pretty much a joke.

They get their prescriptions free and a couple other entitlements.

They own a boat,motor home,golf cart to ride the neighborhood and just purchased a 2500.00 television.

He says he can't afford supplemtal insurance so had found a Dr that would accept medicare only.Now the poor man is incensed because the DR gave him the boot after treating his wife for a bad back and her refusal to follow his direction.Lose 75 lbs,increase her daily activity and walk daily.Her days consist of the shopping mall and 3-4 hours a day playing internet poker.She asked me recently why I worked so hard.It was all I could do not to tell her that I had to so I could help support her.

They strongly dislike Obama but are afraid they will lose some of "their entitlements" if he is not re-elected

[Guest]

They strongly dislike Obama but are afraid they will lose some of "their entitlements" if he is not re-elected

He's got em right where he want's them. Totally dependant on government. He would like us all to be that way. His policies guarantee that more and more people will become dependant on Gov't as time goes on.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

They strongly dislike Obama but are afraid they will lose some of "their entitlements" if he is not re-elected

He's got em right where he want's them. Totally dependant on government. He would like us all to be that way. His policies guarantee that more and more people will become dependant on Gov't as time goes on.

Stands a good chance of getting him re-elected

[Guest]

I sure hope not! Don't even talk like that....The country can't take 4 more years of this!

[bonnie]

I sure hope not! Don't even talk like that....The country can't take 4 more years of this!

I sure wouldn't bet the farm against his re-election. To many like my neighbor will have a death grip on "their entitlements".

Any correction to this mess will cause a degree of financial pain for most.Why give up your foodstamps and medical?

While no one gets rich on the dole it does give a certain security without any physical labor

[Guest]

I think the majority of this country now sees what has to be done, and is watching the downward spiral unfold. It's just hard to tell because it's not reflected anywhere in the media. If you listened to them (the media) then you wouldn't even bother to go out and vote, because you'd be convinced that it's a lost cause for us, and a slam dunk for them. LOL

Anyone who is tuned in to the mainstream media is constantly hearing the same lies repeated over and over. After a while, if they don't have anything to compare it to, it becomes the truth in their eyes.

Liberals have used this fact to their advantage for many many years, but now they have lost their grip on it. They no longer have the monopoly on the news. That doesn't stop them from creating the news, as if they still did.

[doug yowell]

I think the majority of this country now sees what has to be done, and is watching the downward spiral unfold. It's just hard to tell because it's not reflected anywhere in the media. If you listened to them (the media) then you wouldn't even bother to go out and vote, because you'd be convinced that it's a lost cause for us, and a slam dunk for them. LOL

Anyone who is tuned in to the mainstream media is constantly hearing the same lies repeated over and over. After a while, if they don't have anything to compare it to, it becomes the truth in their eyes.

.

When a people don't care whether or not they believe a lie what happens to them? The Presidant's moral,sociological, and economic agenda was on the table long before he was elected but many people chose to believe that his dream of radical transformation was inspired.The people got what they asked for and as long as they aren't far worse off they will probably keep that dream alive. I'm not as optimistic as you on this one.Richard.

[Guest]

When a people don't care whether or not they believe a lie what happens to them?

Now that is a deep question, but I think I know the answer.

[bonnie]

When a people don't care whether or not they believe a lie what happens to them? The Presidant's moral,sociological, and economic agenda was on the table long before he was elected but many people chose to believe that his dream of radical transformation was inspired.The people got what they asked for and as long as they aren't far worse off they will probably keep that dream alive. I'm not as optimistic as you on this one.Richard.

Even those worse off but being taken care of by those that work will still vote for Obama.

Those working two and three jobs instead of living off fellow taxpayers won't vote for him.

Welfare is insidious. You may wish you had more but it is blame tough to give up.

Obama is so full of himself he thinks all he has to do is utter the magic words to the bank"Loan more money" or "employers start hiring"

Those that actually have worked for a living or sunk their all into a business just laugh at that.

I suspect he has a good chance as long as he grows the ranks of the takers

[Dr. Shane]

You are right,Many vote for the party putting money in their pocket.

You know what they say...

If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for a Democrat.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You are right,Many vote for the party putting money in their pocket.

You know what they say...

If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for a Democrat.

Thanks,but I will pass on voting democrat.If I had a choice between a Obama/democrat vote or Donald Duck,I would choose Donald Duck. Check the stats tho,democrats/liberals are wealthier than their republican counterparts and not from voting republican.