President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1398

On November 08 2012 10:37 babylon wrote:

I'm also surprised. Also, I think voter turnout from the youngest demographic keeps dropping, and they are the ones who may pay more attention to social issues ('cause you *know* these will have an impact on your life) than economic issues (which, if you are in college, may seem a little abstract), so ... doubly shocked tbh.

On November 08 2012 10:37 KwarK wrote:

In fairness it's not like Obama's economic plan was to set fire to the country and claim the insurance, he does have a legitimate track record on the economy. Jobs are being created, it is growing. Whether it's as much as you believe Romney would do is another matter but I don't think people voted for Obama because they didn't care at all about the economy.

On November 08 2012 10:54 babylon wrote:

After hearing Fox News say, on air, that they think they lost this election because Romney was too moderate ... I don't know what to think. They said the same thing about McCain too. Sigh.

On November 08 2012 10:57 Joedaddy wrote:


Incomes declined every year during his first term. down by $4,300. for middle income families.

32 million on food stamps when Obama took office. Now 47 million on food stamps.

10 trillion dollars in debt when Obama took office. Now16 trillion in debt.

Unemployment is down, but there are also less people being counted that still remain unemployed. I need to dig up the details about this, but there is a lot of concern that un-employment is being understated as a result in the way unemployment is being counted. In essence, being willing and able to work yet remaining unemployed does not mean you are being counted in the unemployment numbers.

"Setting fire" seems a bit extreme, but I'm not seeing how Obama's policy are anything short of failure. Unless of course, you paint the doomsday picture that Obama saved us from.

The financial crisis of 2007–2008, also known as the global financial crisis and 2008 financial crisis, is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1][2] It resulted in the threat of total collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments, and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. The crisis played a significant role in the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of US dollars, and a downturn in economic activity leading to the 2008–2012 global recession and contributing to the European sovereign-debt crisis.[3][4] The active phase of the crisis, which manifested as a liquidity crisis, can be dated from August 7, 2007 when BNP Paribas terminated withdrawals from three hedge funds citing "a complete evaporation of liquidity".[5]

The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble, which peaked in 2006,[6] caused the values of securities tied to U.S. real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally.[7][8] The financial crisis was triggered by a complex interplay of government policies that encouraged home ownership, providing easier access to loans for subprime borrowers, overvaluation of bundled sub-prime mortgages based on the theory that housing prices would continue to escalate, questionable trading practices on behalf of both buyers and sellers, compensation structures that prioritize short-term deal flow over long-term value creation, and a lack of adequate capital holdings from banks and insurance companies to back the financial commitments they were making.[9][10][11][12] Questions regarding bank solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock markets, where securities suffered large losses during 2008 and early 2009. Economies worldwide slowed during this period, as credit tightened and international trade declined.[13] Governments and central banks responded with unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary policy expansion and institutional bailouts. Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009.[14][15][16] In the U.S., Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In the EU, the UK responded with austerity measures of spending cuts and tax increases without export growth and it has since slid into a double-dip recession.[17][18]

Many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts.[19] The U.S. Senate's Levin–Coburn Report asserted that the crisis was the result of "high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."[20] The 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act effectively removed the separation between investment banks and depository banks in the United States.[21] Critics argued that credit rating agencies and investors failed to accurately price the risk involved with mortgage-related financial products, and that governments did not adjust their regulatory practices to address 21st-century financial markets.[22] Research into the causes of the financial crisis has also focused on the role of interest rate spreads.[23]

In response to the financial crisis, both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration.[24] Paul Krugman, author of End This Depression Now! (2012), argues that while current solutions have stabilized the world economy, the world economy will not improve unless it receives further stimulus.[25] Buchanan, Gjerstad, and Smith argue that fiscal and monetary policy are ineffective, failing to reignite residential investment and construction as they have in past contractions. The current type of contraction requires balance sheet repair via currency depreciation and export-driven growth. Fiscal stimulus extends a current account deficit and retards export growth.[18][26] If the world economy does not improve, many economists fear sovereign default is a real possibility in several European countries and even the United States.[27]

On November 08 2012 11:04 farvacola wrote:


Source

How's that for painting? Get real, we suffered MASSIVE economic hits, and the damage could have been far worse, all thoughts given print by the likes of Krugman and similar minded economists. The mere fact that you mention a sub-20 million dollar increase in food stamps shows how loaded your hand is; that number is not only tiny but also very likely indicative of something most average people can see very clearly; shit got bad, and people needed assistance. Now is where you pretend that most of those who receive these benefits are lazy, horrible, likely minority citizens, and use that intellectually dishonest label to justify lionizing anyone who wants to cut government spending. Guess what, voters didn't buy the bullshit, so I'd stop selling it like it's a well informed opinion.