Mass Layoffs Coming under Obama

[top gun]

but nothing says it has to look anything like his budget,,,,and most dont want to be the ones who end up with no budget at all.

That's correct. If the different branches are at heavy odds it's turns into the worlds biggest game of playing "chicken".

Someone usually blinks. If the President has high approval numbers he usually can get his way. If the President is unpopular then Congress has more bargaining power.

But in the end it almost always pisses most all the American people off at everybody if they play it out & shut down the government in one of these pissing contests.

That's why it doesn't happen that often.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That's correct. If the different branches are at heavy odds it's turns into the worlds biggest game of playing "chicken".

Someone usually blinks. If the President has high approval numbers he usually can get his way. If the President is unpopular then Congress has more bargaining power.

But in the end it almost always pisses most all the American people off at everybody if they play it out & shut down the government in one of these pissing contests.

That's why it doesn't happen that often.

Well you know Republicans will hate Obama for not doing it, sure there Bush never did it, but still...he is a republican , he is alowed to run debt...

 

[Dr.Who]

This is not a mild recession.

A short time ago it was a pretty average recession. But thanks to President Obama it has gotten worse than it was in a few ways. Unemployment is both higher and 20% higher than he said it would be if nothing were done at all. And it has lasted longer than recessions typically last.

 

[Dr.Who]

When will the Conservatives stop running around in circles screaming 'socialism' and realize that it makes them look like idiots? Things are getting better. Wait...they ARE idiots.

Calling socialist policies socialism seems pretty sane to me.

Things have not gotten better by most statistics.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are simply wrong about the size & scope of the BUSH RECESSION. It is the worst economic downturn since the GREAT DEPRESSION.

Four of the last recessions since the great depression have been worse than this one!

Four of the last recessions since the great depression have been worse than this one!

Four of the last recessions since the great depression have been worse than this one!

Four of the last recessions since the great depression have been worse than this one!

By the end of 2010 the US economy will have started a substantial and very noticeable rebound from the BUSH RECESSION. It won't be back up to where our last Democratic President Bill Clinton had it... but the sour grapes groups on the Right will be in full "Well sure it's better, but that has nothing to do with the Stimulus or President Obama, mode".

By 2010, in the eyes of the sane, the economy, its good things and bad, will belong solely to Obama.

They'll complain and try to OBSTRUCT going in... during... and after... that's all they know how to do. The Republicants had over 6 full years of a total lock on our government, the Executive and BOTH Houses of Congress. They did not help they hurt. And now they complain that THEY have the answers? BS!

[/QUOTE]

I don;t think the republicans have the answers. They are just not as wrong as the democrats who have the problems.

The ones with the best answers are the libertarians and they are not in power.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

A short time ago it was a pretty average recession. But thanks to President Obama it has gotten worse than it was in a few ways. Unemployment is both higher and 20% higher than he said it would be if nothing were done at all. And it has lasted longer than recessions typically last.

this was a bad recession long before Obama, sorry to break the news...

 

[Dr.Who]

Congress has the most to do with it. They are the one's writing the bills and passing the laws.

Everything in the US was humming along beutifully until the dems in 2006 took over control in house and senate. Since then.. it has all been a shambles.

Get rid of the bad apples in congress (dems and repbus) and the problem can be fixed.

And yet congress did not cause this recession in the UK.

Point being that recessions just happen.

 

[Dr.Who]

this was a bad recession long before Obama, sorry to break the news...

Really?

What statistic do you have to show that it was bad compared to other recessions?

 

[top gun]

Really?

What statistic do you have to show that it was bad compared to other recessions?

Financial crisis of 2007–2009
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The financial crisis of 2007–2009 has been called the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression by leading economists,[1] with its global effects characterized by the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars, substantial financial commitments incurred by governments, and a significant decline in economic activity.[2] Many causes have been proposed, with varying weight assigned by experts.[3] Both market-based and regulatory solutions have been implemented or are under consideration,[4] while significant risks remain for the world economy.[5]

Contents
1 Background
2 Cause of the financial crisis
2.1 Growth of the housing bubble
2.2 Easy credit conditions
2.3 Sub-prime lending
2.4 Predatory lending
2.5 Deregulation
2.6 Increased debt burden or over-leveraging
2.7 Financial innovation and complexity
2.8 Boom and collapse of the shadow banking system
2.9 Commodity bubble
2.10 Systemic crisis
2.11 Role of economic forecasting
3 Financial markets impacts
3.1 Impacts on financial institutions
3.2 Credit markets and the shadow banking system
3.3 Wealth effects
3.4 Global contagion
4 Effects on the global economy
4.1 Global effects
4.2 U.S. economic effects
4.3 Official economic projections
5 Responses to financial crisis
5.1 Emergency and short-term responses
5.2 Regulatory proposals and long-term responses
6 See also
7 References
8 External links and further reading


Background

Share in GDP of U.S. financial sector since 1860.[6]In the years leading up to the start of the crisis in 2007, high consumption and low savings rates in the U.S. contributed to significant amounts of foreign money flowing into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002-2004 resulted in easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[7] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in subprime MBS reported significant losses. Falling prices also resulted in homes worth less than the mortgage loan, providing a financial incentive to enter foreclosure. The ongoing foreclosure epidemic that began in late 2006 in the U.S. continues to drain wealth from consumers and erodes the financial strength of banking institutions. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[8]

While the housing and credit bubbles built, a series of factors caused the financial system to both expand and become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. Some experts believe these institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[9] These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[10] These losses impacted the ability of financial institutions to lend, slowing economic activity. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to provide funds to encourage lending and restore faith in the commercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions and implemented economic stimulus programs, assuming significant additional financial commitments.

 

[Dr.Who]

Top Gun,

Well that's a nice LONG quote but no where in it did it include any stats showing that this downturn is worse than those that have come before since the Great Depression. The reason is obvious - if any stats were provided they would easily be proven to be wrong or not significant. There have been about 12 recessions since the great depression and 4 of them have been worse than this one by objective measures; measure like GDP and employment.

What your article did do was to highlight a quote that some economists have CALLED this the most serious crisis since the GD. Of course there are others who have not called it that and the credibility of economists is dubious when 1) they work for the organization that is paid by the government, 2) they stand to gain by calling it a great crisis, and 3) they have not provided any objective reason to believe them.

The nice thing about wiki is that they provide a list of sources for what they say and even links.

That statement from "leading economists" goes back to a Reuters article in which a sum total of 3 economists are quoted and no stats are given. The three economists work for CERA (which is owned by IHS), IHS, and the IMF. All three bodies get paid by the US government to say what they want to be said.

Here is a statement about the IMF (international monetary fund):

"Using panel data for 155 countries over the period 1999-2005 we empirically investigate the politics involved in IMF economic forecasts. We find a systematic bias in growth and inflation forecasts. Our results indicate that countries voting in line with the US in the UN General Assembly receive better inflation forecasts. As the US is the [international monetary] Fund’s major shareholder, this result supports the hypothesis that the Fund’s forecasts are not purely based on economic considerations. The “defensive lending” hypothesis is, to some extent, confirmed by the results as inflation forecasts are systematically biased downwards for countries more exposed to the IMF."

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/1/0/9/6/p210965_index.html

But if you still think this is a worse recession then just provide on statistic that is significant to support that point of view.

According to the NBER (another political government entity) aside from the GDP there are four major indicators of recession: Slower consumer spending, inverted yield curve, rising unemployment, and inflationary pressure.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/03/24/four-key-recession-indicators.aspx

Those do not show that we are in a worse recession since the GD.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Really?

What statistic do you have to show that it was bad compared to other recessions?

why did you miss the realitiy of anyone living in the real world who was watching?

 

[Dr.Who]

why did you miss the realitiy of anyone living in the real world who was watching?

That is not even a very effective dodge were it one, though I will assume it was not a dodge and your intent was something else. You just cant provide any statistic that this downturn is worse in general than all of the past recessions since the GD.

Sure lots of people have been complaining. The young ones don't remember the older recessions. The older ones have forgotten. And people just like to complain - especially if they are one of the people who is out of work. ut anecdotal evidence has never been a very good way to measure national or global events.

And of course the media will always hype things for sensationalism and to push an agenda.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

That is not even a very effective dodge were it one, though I will assume it was not a dodge and your intent was something else. You just cant provide any statistic that this downturn is worse in general than all of the past recessions since the GD.

Sure lots of people have been complaining. The young ones don't remember the older recessions. The older ones have forgotten. And people just like to complain - especially if they are one of the people who is out of work. ut anecdotal evidence has never been a very good way to measure national or global events.

And of course the media will always hype things for sensationalism and to push an agenda.

my point is that anyone who even has half paid attention does not need stats to know how bad the econ has been last few years. you can find 10000 stats and people will disagree on when the recesion started and always have...but fact its it sucked well well before Obama took ofice and anyone who is honest with themself knows it.

 

[asur]

Anyone who is honest sees that Obama has created an economic disaster.
The problem is he lied today about it getting better in the US.

It's not better by any statistical measure.
He orders his associates to go out in the press and boast
about how it is, without any proof, to fool the zombies.

 

[PLC1]

Anyone who is honest sees that Obama has created an economic disaster.
The problem is he lied today about it getting better in the US.

It's not better by any statistical measure.
He orders his associates to go out in the press and boast
about how it is, without any proof, to fool the zombies.

Anyone who is logical sees that the economic disaster was not caused by the resident of the WH, whether you think it started under Bush or waited until after the election.

Blame the pres for what the pres is to blame for. The war in Iraq, 1/2 Bush, and 1/2 the Congress. That trillion dollar deficit was a joint effort as well.

It is likely that, had we elected Romney as we should have done, the deficit would be a lot smaller right now. Of course, there is no way to prove that, and we'd still be dealing with the war deficit, the TARP deficit, and the Democrat controlled Congress deficit.