PDA

View Full Version : Obama Bam's lousy economic record


HonestChieffan
08-20-2010, 09:03 AM
Bam's lousy economic record: Let's just look at the facts, shall we?

BY KEITH HENNESSEY

Monday, August 16th 2010, 4:00 AM



On the campaign trail, President Obama is talking about everything except his own economic record. He attacks his predecessor - a man for whom I worked - as his advisers promise a return to Clinton-era economics.

Rather than hearing about the last two Presidents, voters may instead want the President to explain the economic realities of his own 18-month tenure and what he foresees for the next two years. To further that understanding here are some facts.

At 9.5%, the unemployment rate is 1.8 percentage points higher today than when the President took office. There are 3.3 million fewer U.S. jobs than there were in January 2009. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in 12 of the 18 months he has been office, including the last two months.

In early August of last year, the President declared that, thanks in part to his policies, the U.S. economy was "pointed in the right direction." We have lost jobs in six of the 12 months since then, for a net decline of 52,000 jobs. The 9.4% unemployment rate when he made this statement climbed to 10.1% and has since declined to 9.5%, still higher than it was last August.

The President signed into law an $862 billion stimulus law and two health laws that will create $788 billion of new entitlements over the next decade. Combine these with countless other smaller spending bills, several of which were labeled as emergencies and therefore not paid for, and the U.S. government is $2.5 trillion more in debt than on the day this President took office. That's $8,000 more debt for every American man, woman, and child.

Signed free trade agreements with allies Colombia, Panama and Korea have not been ratified by Congress because the President hasn't submitted them for approval. All three have sat in his inbox.

That's the past and present. What, then, does the President have to offer a skeptical voter for the future?

Assuming his economic agenda is enacted into law, the Obama administration projects unemployment would average 9.0% over four years of the President's term. If you assume he is re-elected, they project unemployment over his two terms would average 7.6%.

For comparison, unemployment during former President Bill Clinton's tenure averaged 5.2% and during President George W. Bush's tenure it averaged 5.3%. Former President Jimmy Carter's unemployment rate averaged 6.5%.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says the President is returning America to "the pro-growth tax and fiscal policies" of the Clinton administration. Yet the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates this administration would have the federal government spend more than 24% of the overall U.S. economy over his term, a government 25% larger than during the Clinton era. Budget deficits would average 8.7% of the U.S. economy, compared with Clinton's average 0.4% surplus

The President proposes more government spending, higher tax rates and more debt than his Democratic predecessor.

If Americans had devoted all their income from the beginning of 2009 to June 8 of that year, they could have paid off the government debt inherited by this President from all his predecessors. Under the President's policies, if they were to try this in 2013, they'd have to work until Sept. 24.

While attention focused on taxpayer funds invested in big Wall Street banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac cost taxpayers $291 billion last year and will cost an additional $98 billion over the next decade. The new financial reform law does not address these two firms, which continue to cost taxpayers about $2 billion each month.

If the President has his way, on Jan. 1, taxes on many successful small business owners will rise. Investors will pay higher taxes on their capital gains and dividends, and some small businesses and family farms will once again be subject to death taxes. This isn't undoing tax cuts for the rich, it's raising taxes on small businesses.

Tanning salons and tobacco are not the only new taxes Americans will face. Drug companies, health plans and medical device manufacturers will charge higher prices as they pass new taxes on to their customers. Health Savings Accounts will no longer be usable for tax-free purchases of over-the-counter medications. Some workers will pay higher Medicare taxes, and some investors will pay a new 2.9% tax.

Individuals and families who cannot afford health insurance will face a new tax, as will employers who cannot afford to provide their employees with health insurance. The President proposes to tax charitable contributions for high-income donors, American firms competing with foreign firms overseas, and, indirectly, your electric bill.

These facts may explain why President Obama wants to talk about somebody else.

Hennessey, who served as the White House senior economic adviser to George W. Bush, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/16/2010-08-16_bams_lousy_economic_record.html?page=1#ixzz0x9eaT7WE

The Mad Crapper
08-31-2010, 08:08 AM
Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as economy sputtered in '09
By Kevin Bogardus and Barbra Kim - 08/31/10 06:00 AM ET

The wealthiest members of Congress grew richer in 2009 even as the economy struggled to recover from a deep recession.

The 50 wealthiest lawmakers were worth almost $1.4 billion in 2009, about $85.1 million more than 12 months earlier, according to The Hill’s annual review of lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) tops the list for the second year in a row. His minimum net worth was $188.6 million at the end of 2009, up by more than $20 million from 2008, according to his financial disclosure form.

While the economy struggled through a recession during much of 2009 and the nation’s unemployment rate soared to 10 percent, the stock market rebounded, helping lawmakers with large investments. The S&P 500 rose by about 28 percent in 2009.

Total assets for the 50 wealthiest lawmakers in 2009 was $1.5 billion — that’s actually a nearly $36 million drop from a year ago. But lawmakers reduced their liabilities by even more, cutting debts by $120 million last year.

There are various reasons why asset values dropped. Some lawmakers saw their real estate holdings fall as the housing crisis intensified. A handful of lawmakers also had other investments or businesses that turned sour.

The only newcomer to the Top 10 list is Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who came straight in at number five. He replaced Rep. Harry Teague (D-N.M.), the 10th wealthiest member in 2008. Teague fell off the top 50 list after the value of a company he has a stake in — Teaco Energy Services, Inc. — fell in value from $39.6 million in 2008 to being worth at least $1 million in 2009.

There were a few other new faces in the Top 50, including Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), who received an inheritance after his late father, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), died in 2009.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) also made the list.

Twenty-seven Democrats along with 23 Republicans make up the 50 richest in Congress; 30 House members and 20 senators are on the list.

The bulk of Kerry’s wealth is credited to his spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars after her late husband, the ketchup heir Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.), died in a plane crash in 1991.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), with a net worth of $160.1 million, is the second-richest member of Congress under The Hill’s formula, even though his wealth declined by more than $4 million in 2009.

He is followed by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who saw her net wealth leap to $152.3 million, a jump of more than $40 million from a year ago.

The rest of the top 10 are Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), McCaul, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

To calculate its rankings, The Hill used only the lawmakers’ financial disclosure forms that cover the 2009 calendar year.

Lawmakers are only required to report their finances in broad ranges. For example, a $2.5 million vacation home in Aspen, Colo., would be reported as being valued at between $1 and $5 million on a congressional financial disclosure form.

To come up with the most conservative estimate for each lawmaker’s wealth, researchers took the bottom number of each range reported. Then, to calculate the minimum net worth for each senator and member, their sum of liabilities was subtracted from their sum of assets.

As a result, the methodology used to find the Top 50 wealthiest in Congress can miss some of the richest lawmakers.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) is certainly one of the wealthiest lawmakers on Capitol Hill. As owner of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks, Kohl has a $254 million asset on his hands, according to Forbes magazine.

But under The Hill’s methodology, his team ownership only counts for $50 million, the highest range reported on the congressional financial disclosure form. Because of high liabilities on his 2009 form, Kohl actually is listed as being more than $4.6 million in debt on the 2009 form.

Walter Alarkon, Richard Barry, Silla Brush, Jordan Fabian, Beth Hawley, Michaela Martins and Eden Stiffman all contributed to this report.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116489-wealthy-lawmakers-increased-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009-

bkkcoh
09-01-2010, 02:05 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q59ZcFguUOo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q59ZcFguUOo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

chiefsnorth
09-01-2010, 03:43 PM
His economic policies are failures, there's no way to spin those stats

Bwana
09-01-2010, 04:30 PM
His economic policies are failures, there's no way to spin those stats

True, but Orange will be along shortly to give it a try.

KC Dan
09-01-2010, 04:48 PM
True, but Orange will be along shortly to give it a try.I think that I saw Orange's car at lunch today. I had to spit out my drink due to laughter and got a picture.

Calcountry
09-01-2010, 05:18 PM
Economics, ZIMBABWE STYLE!!!

Calcountry
09-01-2010, 05:22 PM
http://images4.cpcache.com/product/433247684v6_100x100_Front_Color-default.jpg Great hat.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 05:22 PM
Economics, ZIMBABWE STYLE!!!

Courtesy of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

The Mad Crapper
09-02-2010, 08:10 AM
Courtesy of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

Who serve at the presidents leisure.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Who serve at the presidents leisure.

All of them— Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama.
Under RR Volcker curbed inflation even if RR appointed Greenspan, which to be fair, was near the end of his presidency. Under the rest Greenspan printed and inflated. The inflation was just hidden due to cheap imports. It was really the Greenspan economy that came home to roost in 2008. Even if Ben came in at the tail end. It's related to govt spending though. However, the Fed and what they do has quite a bit to do with our economy as well. This doesn't exempt Obama's contribution which is worsening conditions on top of it all. Can't exempt the Fed's role though.

BigChiefFan
09-02-2010, 11:02 AM
Guess what? We elect one of the cronie Republicans and the same stuff will continue. It's corruption and it doesn't fall on just one party's shoulders. We've been hoodwinked by both sides. How does anybody think one of the BIG TWO will look out for their interests?

The FED is a PRIVATE ENTITY that LOANS us OUR MONEY BACK, at INTEREST, until that changes, welcome to the biggest Ponzi Scheme there is.

P.T. Barnum would like a lot folks in this era. Step right up to the Greatest SHOW on Earth.

ROYC75
09-02-2010, 11:32 AM
Come on guys, He promised " CHANGE ". At least give him credit for that.