and thats only one of the many things he's done
They ignore his biggest accomplishment as President.
The President of the United States can not directly affect the economy. The President could sign legislation into affect but the FED actually controls the power when it comes to economy-building.
Although the president does not have a seat on the FED's board of governors, he did have to make the important decisions of who to place on that board. These decisions ultimately led to the economic upturn. Additionally, as a result of the policies that Obama put in place like new regulations for pre-loan screening as soon as he entered office, he created an environment which was a great habitat for economic success.
The President does appoint the FED members but the Senate still has to approve the members. The FED is also completely separate from government so to say that there is any correlation between Obama's decision and what the FED decides to do is crazy. Also pre-loan screening is not an indicator of economic success, GDP is a major indicator for economic success which slowed down under President Obama. People might make the argument that Obama also lowered unemployment which is true only because more people were leaving the workforce since they could not find ay jobs
Neither the fact that the Senate approved the members or the separateness of the FED and the government disproves the obvious reality that the FED would not have been able to install the policies that they did had Obama not nominated those FED members. To say that Obama's nominations has no effect on what the FED does is ludicrous because different members would undoubtedly have different opinions about what policies to pass. Also, I never argued that pre-loan screening is an indicator of economic success, I instead argued that it is a factor which makes for an economic environment that is able to arouse success. Again, here you failed to disprove my argument and all you've done is use a fallacy pertaining to my argument as a premise. And to your argument about a smaller workforce, during every quarter of Obama's presidency jobs have increased so regardless of whether or not the workforce is smaller, jobs are being created which goes to show that he has been effective in job creation.
Obama's fed chair until 2014 was actually a Bush appointee (Ben bernanke), and given the post-recession need for stability, it's hard to imagine any president not re-appointing him. As for his 2014-now appointee, Janet Yellen, it's definitely hard to sell her as an amazing fed chair, especially considering the fact that nobody on the fed right now seems to agree on when to raise rates.As for the unemployment stuff, I would be beyond terrified if $700B stimulus didn't create some growth and jobs, especially after a massive recession. Id anything the fact that wages have been so stagnant and growth, while positive, has been quite slow, would be causes for concern rather than reasons to espouse Obama
The need for stability is easy to realize now that we are viewing it from a futuristic perspective but at the time it wouldn't have seemed radical for Obama to decide a new appointment was needed in order to make a change in a nosediving economy. As for Janet Yelling, I don't think the fact that there is a disagreeance over when to raise rates proves her as a problematic FED chair. To the point about his stimulus package, the $700B was absolutely necessary in my opinion to create the growth and whether inevitable or not its success in creating jobs should be attributed to the President. The growth may be slower than we would like but like you've admitted, there has been constant growth. The sluggish speed of it is not to be an issue pertaining to Obama's legacy but just a problem related to the quality of the country's economy when he adopted his office.
The need for stability is easy to realize at any point in time, since almost any economic policy maker understands that stability is critical for markets and consumer confidence. I think it would have been very surprising, as a result, had Obama switched the fed chair when stability and confidence were needed most. Yellen isn't necessarily a bad Fed chair, but I'm just saying she hasn't done anything that would lead me to believe that her appointment was some stroke of genius from the administration. As far as the stimulus goes, resolving this debate requires knowledge of how much growth could have been unlocked with 700 billion dollars, which would require really hard math and stuff that I don't know how to do. I think it's a tough sell to say, however, that just because there was a little bit of growth, $700B of spending is automatically justified.More importantly, I think the fact that a lot of this discussion has hinged on the stimulus reveals how truly little Obama did outside of it. A big problem in the crisis was the racking up of mortgage debt, which could've been eased through debt forgiveness programs, buyback programs, or subsidizing lenders, none of which happened.
Wait, so the economy doesn't go in cycles? Since the beginning of time there have been fluctuations in markets. The economy would have gone up after hitting rock bottom under ANY presidency. It is nothing to be lauded about. If this statement has any credence, the following presidents should go down as being the best for the economy:Calvin CoolidgeFDRRonald ReaganBill ClintonAnd President ObamaThe irony is that all of these presidents oversaw economies that did very well using utterly different policies. So no, the fact that Obama saw an economy go from rock bottom to mediocre does not point to the success of his policies or his skills as an economy builder.
The fact that all of these economically successful presidents used different types of policies simply goes to show how non-formulaic the economy is. A good president understands this and will not be stuck in their rigid liberal or conservative way of dealing with the economy and instead deals with the economy in a way that changes depending on the specificity of the economic climate. For example, President Obama--a liberal--bailed out the banks to save the economy although that can be seen as a conservative-like move.
It goes to show that the economy goes in cycles, and that policy is less influential than everyone thinks.Do you believe that tax cuts for everyone (Reagan, Coolidge) and Tax increases on the wealthy (P. Obama) will both have the same effect on the economy, as long as there's a good leader pulling the strings?That doesn't make a lot of sense to be honest...
Just for historical accuraxy's sake, Bush signed the TARP bailout into law. It's actually really interesting to think about how a democratic president would've handled the banks collapse. Would they have signed tarp at all, would they have let Lehman fail, etc.
The fact of the matter is they can have the same effect based upon other factors that largely depends on the specific economic climate of the time. Also, although President Obama was not the one who initially enacted TARP, he was the one who administered the policy when he could not have had he stuck to his liberal, anti-bank background.
While, yes, in theory, he could have just pulled the plug on TARP, that would have destroyed the financial sector, and likely the entire American economy as well, not to mention the global ripple effects on top of it all. Realistically speaking, there was no way that the TARP program wasn't going to be carried out after Bush signed it, especially considering that it was functionally a loan program that eventually paid itself off. While it would indeed have been "sticking to his anti-bank background", it would've also been political suicide to overturn a necessary policy and sinking the economy as a result.
Well it seems we're on the same side. I agree that is was absolutely necessary for the President to administer TARP. My point is that regardless of its necessity which we now understand, he wandered from the rigid, cookie-cutter liberal methodology in order to save the economy and lift us out of the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression. That, I posit is good policy on behalf of President Obama.
I think it's a little ridiculous to be having this discussion about economic legacy so soon, especially considering a lot of his policies are obviously good in the short-term, but might have consequences down the road. A similar example would be the Clinton presidency, where everyone would probably say he was great for the economy during his term, but looking back on it, a lot of his policies were direct causes of the asset bubble crashes in 00 and 07-08, as well as the massive long-term risk that hasn't truly been resolved even today (I.e, bank deregulation, tying CEO pay to stock options, etc).Obviously injecting $700B into the economy is going to create some growth. Obviously using government money to hire people is going to curb unemployment. I think it's more important to consider the effects of these policies in the longer-term, along with considering if any systemic problems within our economy were really solved, and I'm not sure of the answers to either of those questions.
I agree that only history will be able to give us an accurate rating of his economic legacy but naturally discussions of it are to arise in the present. He is holding the most criticized office in the world. If anything, the absurdity arises from an expectation that these discussions will be postponed for a decade or longer.
Sure, it's fine to discuss his economic legacy, but doing so purely in terms of unemployment or GDP data seems misguided, considering these are relatively short-term indicators that have been wrong before.
I believe that the president has had a very postie impact on the economy thus far, especially from what was handed down to him from bush. Obama had to act swiftly and quickly, and he did exactly that. But like user Rohan pointed out it is still yet too early to determine his long term impact on the economy. And as we all know a good economic policy last through time, But i guess we will all have to wait and see(unless the next president comes in and screws everything up). I disagree with user Jonathan that, yes there are economic cycles, but if bush was in office for another 4 years, i promise you our economy would not have recovered. Further more, aside from protecting the constitution, fixing problems is another task a president have to accomplish, so yes Obama, and FDR , were very good presidents. But personally for me FDR was the greatest economy building president of all time.
Can you describe what is good economic policy in your opinion?
This is a joke. He will end as 4th worst in economic growth, and is the only president to never grow the economy 3% in a year. "Assuming 2.67% RGDP growth for 2016, Obama will leave office having produced an average of1.55% growth. This would place his presidency fourth from the bottom of the list of 39*, above only those of Herbert Hoover (-5.65%), Andrew Johnson (-0.70%) and Theodore Roosevelt (1.41%)"*edit: added quote
I believe that economic growth has to be analyzed relative to other nations. GDP is down across the board and under Pres. Obama the unemployment rate is down to 5% and the private sector has been adding jobs for 74 consecutive months.
The United States has a large impact on the economy of other nations, so when we suffer, so too so many others. Your argument then is invalid.
Obama barely accomplished anything during his 8 years as president. He made so many promises and couldn't keep a single one of them. He couldn't even close Gitmo, the very first thing he swore to do when he took office. (Come on, you couldn't just simply board up a prison--a promise that you've been sitting on for EIGHT YEARS?!) Even the Obamacare that he's famous for isn't even true universal health care like in other countries; it's just the standard health care we still have, but with a discount and lots of limitations. (I know this because I'm stuck with it.)