How much economic decay can Obama's popularity withstand?

[Jacobtm]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

[pbrower2a]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously premature, but many people seem to believe this.

The longest and nastiest meltdown, that of 1929-1933, lasted three and one half years (the gray line):



The 1929-1933 was in fact several meltdowns in succession (which is more ominous on a logarithmic scale shown with difficulty). The current Bad Bear (the blue line) for a time looked like the 1929-1933 series of meltdowns, the result of incredible incompetence of government and the absence of any safety net (Social Security, bank deposit insurance). We have gone through what may be the worst economic calamity possible in our time -- the consequence of Dubya-era incompetence that left hidden damage.

If we get a recovery it will be because we have found ways other than a speculative boom for making money -- like re-investment in plant and equipment, the establishment of small businesses, and government programs of stimulus. Youth with some intellectual talent may be drawn into the creation of tangible wealth through skilled labor instead of the creation of not-so-tangible wealth through bureaucratic power-plays... and it would be better if some of our best-and-brightest became construction workers and restaurant owners instead of budding Shylocks. (College education on a student loan has become a risky proposition). Obama could get credit just for doing nothing to get in the way. 

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

The current improvement in stock prices indicates that we may have passed the worst. Nothing definitively says that there can't be another downturn.

No speculative boom fueled with subprime lending is now possible. That's just as well. That boom probably destroyed more wealth than it created.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

The shrinking seems to be over. But even if the economy stabilizes at a lower level than it had been (the subprime mortgage collapse and the underinvestment in plant-and-equipment during the Rove/Bush administration wasted and destroyed great amounts of wealth that could have promoted a prosperity that we might not get to enjoy for another twenty years or so), then people might still be more understanding. We Americans have much patience with economic distress, which explains why we have never had a strong Socialist or Communist Party. When government shows itself incompetent or corrupt we turn to the silver-tongued orator (FDR, Reagan, Obama) who offers the opposite, stops the bleeding, and then lets things go as they would without the incompetence or corruption. 

[Jacobtm]

If you look at our current market, it's hit lows and then rebounded for a few months, only to fall further, several times already. Also, the stock market isn't that important if unemployment/underemployment stays high.

[Vepres]

If you look at our current market, it's hit lows and then rebounded for a few months, only to fall further, several times already. Also, the stock market isn't that important if unemployment/underemployment stays high.

Most financial experts would say the stock market is a leading indicator of economic and job growth. The stock market has been doing very well lately (I'm an amateur investor), I've heard it's six months to a year ahead of the economy, and the economy is a leading indicator of job growth. So we could potentially have a strong economy and robust job growth in 2-2.5 years.

Also, don't forget that even if the economy improves, but health care, cap-and-trade, and immigration reform blow up in Obama's face, he could still lose even with a recovering economy.

[Coburn In 2012]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

2.   lost the wars in iraq, afganistan and probably in some other place we don't know of yet.  democrats just love to get us into wars like slick willie in somalia and then they can't get us out.  The US will get its ass kicked and morale will be next to zero.  Obama will no doubt apologize to the terrorists and the world.

3.    destroyed millions of families and communities with un precendented welfare addiction.  If you think it was bad under JOhnson just wait and see what this guy has in store.  He gots to take care of his peeps you know.

So come 2012, have no fear.  The American people will do what they always do when the country is at risk -- turn to a serious and conservative Republican who can restore our national honor.  The only thing we don 't know is who that will be.  We need another Ronald REagan and I am sure he is out there.  It's just not clear if its a Senator, a governor or someone else.

[Smash255]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

2.   lost the wars in iraq, afganistan and probably in some other place we don't know of yet.  democrats just love to get us into wars like slick willie in somalia and then they can't get us out.  The US will get its ass kicked and morale will be next to zero.  Obama will no doubt apologize to the terrorists and the world.

3.    destroyed millions of families and communities with un precendented welfare addiction.  If you think it was bad under JOhnson just wait and see what this guy has in store.  He gots to take care of his peeps you know.

So come 2012, have no fear.  The American people will do what they always do when the country is at risk -- turn to a serious and conservative Republican who can restore our national honor.  The only thing we don 't know is who that will be.  We need another Ronald REagan and I am sure he is out there.  It's just not clear if its a Senator, a governor or someone else.

1.  He is only raising taxes on the top 2% (top two brackets), those taxes are only going up by 3%, will be at levels they were under Clinton, which is 10% lower than they were under Reagan....

2.  What exactly was Bush's plan again???

3.  based off what exactly??

[Mint]

1.  He is only raising taxes on the top 2% (top two brackets), those taxes are only going up by 3%, will be at levels they were under Clinton, which is 10% lower than they were under Reagan....

Not true, after 1987 taxes were just 28% for the top marginal rate. Also the numbers Obama is proposing just don't match reality. We can't remotely begin to pay for the stimulus, more healthcare spending, two wars, etc. just by returning to Clinton taxation levels. Not even under the long haul.

Of course I don't think 'Coburn2012' is for real so all of this is moot.

[Mr.Phips]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

[paul718]

I'm convinced Coburn is a red-avatar in disguise.

Anyways...one thing that worries me is that the real estate market is still well above the trend-line.  So we could have quite a bit more correction ahead of us.

[Smash255]

I'm convinced Coburn is a red-avatar in disguise.

Anyways...one thing that worries me is that the real estate market is still well above the trend-line.  So we could have quite a bit more correction ahead of us.

Perhaps could still see some downturn, but I don't think we will see it at the rate it has gone down over the last couple of years.  Perhaps some isolated areas may continue to see a sharp downturn.  However, to see a downturn continue at the rate it has been, interest rates would have to skyrocket, and I just don't see that happening.  Perhaps the rates will rise a little, but I don't think we will be seeing the 7.5, 8% + interest rates (for those with good credit anyway) anytime soon.

[JSojourner]

I'm convinced Coburn is a red-avatar in disguise.

Anyways...one thing that worries me is that the real estate market is still well above the trend-line.  So we could have quite a bit more correction ahead of us.

You might be right about our pal, Coburn.  But if he is a red avatar, he has Rush Limbaugh's talk lines down perfectly. 

As to real estate, I share your concern.  I think the necessary correction is going to be more painful that a lot of us realize.  Do you see any difference, Paul, in the impact on the real estate market between home owners and commercial properties?  Do you expect one side to recover more quickly, or are they both in about the same kettle of mess?  (Thanks.  I am not sure I have told you how much I appreciate your posts.)

[??????????]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

[Mint]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

Agreed, I don't see how anyone could justify taking more than a third of what someone earned. But regardless of personal feelings, the last thing we want to do is raise taxes during a recession. At most start tossing out the useless tax 'breaks' and loopholes out there that make the US tax code the world's best door stopper.

[War on Want]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

Opinion.

[??????????]

Over 80% of the posts on this forum are OPINION, DUH.

[War on Want]

Over 80% of the posts on this forum are OPINION, DUH.

Yes but that was a particularly stupid one. I have never heard a valid argument for why high tax rates on the rich=theft.

[Mint]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

Opinion.

Would you want to be forced to give away that much? Don't think so. The problem with this country now is that everyone is for higher spending and taxes on as long as someone else pays.

[Mr.Phips]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

Agreed, I don't see how anyone could justify taking more than a third of what someone earned. But regardless of personal feelings, the last thing we want to do is raise taxes during a recession. At most start tossing out the useless tax 'breaks' and loopholes out there that make the US tax code the world's best door stopper.

It would be bad to raise taxes during a recession.  It would be just as bad to try to cut spending during a recession. 

[War on Want]

Many people seem to believe that at this point, Obama will be re-elected in 2012. This is obviously pre-mature, but many people seem to believe this.

However, there's less consensus on how the economy behave. Some people see an economy that is falling slower as a sign that it'll reverse within the next year or two, setting Obama up perfectly to claim credit for the recovery. But many other analysts think that this recession will lead to far more than 2 years of recession or slow growth, possibly keeping global growth stagnant for more than 4 years.

So if the economy keeps shrinking, or is only growing at some pace that doesn't really mean much, can Obama's present popularity withstand?

Liberals are the most elitist and arrogant people in the world.  In 1976 they were so sure Jimmy Carter would be re-elected in a land slide.  Too funny. 

Obama will be the most hated and unpopular president in US history by the time 2012 roles around.  Why?  Because he will have...

1.   totally screwed up our economy by raising taxings to ridiculously high levels  (this will force business after business to close or leave our shores putting millions out of work.)

Ridiculously high levels?  He's not raising the top rate to the 91% it was under Eisenhower.  Anything under 50% is low for the top rate. 

Any tax rate over 40% is theft, plain and simple.

Opinion.

Would you want to be forced to give away that much? Don't think so. The problem with this country now is that everyone is for higher spending and taxes on as long as someone else pays.

If I made large amounts of money, I probably wouldn't bitch too much. No one likes paying taxes and no one likes sacrifice but does that make it immoral or thievery? I don't think so, especially when that high spending goes to improvements that in the end help everyone. Infrastructure, education, healthcare and energy are just some of the things that need high amounts of spending but help every part of the economy. That requires high taxes, unless you want a deficit. I am all for making spending cuts in unecessary areas but you have pay for the improvements with higher taxes. I personally believe that the rich can sustain higher taxes easier with almost no reduction in their standards of living and that many have inherited large amounts of money. I don't like the government making judgement on this and punishing everyone, including those who have worked hard in life to make that sort of a living but I don't think having something close to an aristocracy is good either.

[??????????]

Over 80% of the posts on this forum are OPINION, DUH.

Yes but that was a particularly stupid one. I have never heard a valid argument for why high tax rates on the rich=theft.

No it's not. I believe that FORCING someone to pay an unfair amount of tax is THEFT. I'm hardly the only one who believes in that. YOU just think it's stupid because you disagree with it.

[Mint]

If I made large amounts of money, I probably wouldn't bitch too much. No one likes paying taxes and no one likes sacrifice but does that make it immoral or thievery? I don't think so, especially when that high spending goes to improvements that in the end help everyone. Infrastructure, education, healthcare and energy are just some of the things that need high amounts of spending but help every part of the economy. That requires high taxes, unless you want a deficit. I am all for making spending cuts in unecessary areas but you have pay for the improvements with higher taxes. I personally believe that the rich can sustain higher taxes easier with almost no reduction in their standards of living and that many have inherited large amounts of money. I don't like the government making judgement on this and punishing everyone, including those who have worked hard in life to make that sort of a living but I don't think having something close to an aristocracy is good either.

1. I reject the premise that we do need to spend more than we currently do, particularly when it comes to education. We spend more than the rest of the world per capita on that, and have continually increased the federal budget for it since the 1980s. Yet our system is lagging in terms of science, math and the drop out rate. Our problem isn't a lack of funds for education, our problem is that the money we spend now is being wasted on state departments and poorly conceived mandates like No Child Left Behind. What is needed is not more spending, rather it is more transparency, streamlining and generally better accountability period.

Infrastructure is a little more complicated. Yes, it is true that a lot of our sewage systems and roads need to be improved. But much of our transportation needs could, and have, been cut back with little detrimental effect to the public. A lot of states are already are using the $28 or so billion they're receiving in congressionally approved grants to build less expensive local roads or fund other projects. We could save a lot of money by deferring those costs to the states and/or making more toll roads. In fact, given the effects on the environment and sprawl the current system encourages I would think liberals would be for that.

As for energy: I don't have a huge problem with Obama's energy proposals per see, but a lot of that can be privately funded.

2. I know we've probably discussed this before, but what exactly is 'rich'? Personally, I think the idea that someone making $250,000 is "wealthy" and should be forced to fork over 40% or more is ridiculous. In a lot of the 'blue states', that's essentially middle class. And when we have so many people not paying income tax period it sounds even more unfair. Really, I don't know what could be more fair than everyone paying the same flat rate with deductions. Of course I'd settle for the GOP's proposal of  slashing the top marginal rate to 25% and cutting everyone else's taxes as a 'compromise.'

[Mr.Phips]

If I made large amounts of money, I probably wouldn't bitch too much. No one likes paying taxes and no one likes sacrifice but does that make it immoral or thievery? I don't think so, especially when that high spending goes to improvements that in the end help everyone. Infrastructure, education, healthcare and energy are just some of the things that need high amounts of spending but help every part of the economy. That requires high taxes, unless you want a deficit. I am all for making spending cuts in unecessary areas but you have pay for the improvements with higher taxes. I personally believe that the rich can sustain higher taxes easier with almost no reduction in their standards of living and that many have inherited large amounts of money. I don't like the government making judgement on this and punishing everyone, including those who have worked hard in life to make that sort of a living but I don't think having something close to an aristocracy is good either.

1. I reject the premise that we do need to spend more than we currently do, particularly when it comes to education. We spend more than the rest of the world per capita on that, and have continually increased the federal budget for it since the 1980s. Yet our system is lagging in terms of science, math and the drop out rate. Our problem isn't a lack of funds for education, our problem is that the money we spend now is being wasted on state departments and poorly conceived mandates like No Child Left Behind. What is needed is not more spending, rather it is more transparency, streamlining and generally better accountability period.

Infrastructure is a little more complicated. Yes, it is true that a lot of our sewage systems and roads need to be improved. But much of our transportation needs could, and have, been cut back with little detrimental effect to the public. A lot of states are already are using the $28 or so billion they're receiving in congressionally approved grants to build less expensive local roads or fund other projects. We could save a lot of money by deferring those costs to the states and/or making more toll roads. In fact, given the effects on the environment and sprawl the current system encourages I would think liberals would be for that.

As for energy: I don't have a huge problem with Obama's energy proposals per see, but a lot of that can be privately funded.

2. I know we've probably discussed this before, but what exactly is 'rich'? Personally, I think the idea that someone making $250,000 is "wealthy" and should be forced to fork over 40% or more is ridiculous. In a lot of the 'blue states', that's essentially middle class. And when we have so many people not paying income tax period it sounds even more unfair. Really, I don't know what could be more fair than everyone paying the same flat rate with deductions. Of course I'd settle for the GOP's proposal of  slashing the top marginal rate to 25% and cutting everyone else's taxes as a 'compromise.'

If there was a flat rate it would have to be like 10% since if taxes were raised on the poor or middle class there would be riots in the streets. 

[??????????]

Of course the people who pay no taxes have no interest or care as to what the tax rates are set at for higher income brackets. It's a political game being played by the left, if their voters aren't affected by their tax policies they'll keep getting re-elected. That's mostly why I believe the current tax system is legalized theft. Even the lowest tax bracket should be required to pay SOMETHING.

[pbrower2a]

Of course the people who pay no taxes have no interest or care as to what the tax rates are set at for higher income brackets. It's a political game being played by the left, if their voters aren't affected by their tax policies they'll keep getting re-elected. That's mostly why I believe the current tax system is legalized theft. Even the lowest tax bracket should be required to pay SOMETHING.

Paradoxically, the high tax rates of the 1950s had some salubrious effects: mostly in letting small businesses compete with the giants. As taxes were cut, cartels and trusts started squeezing out or buying out competitors. A nation of small shops in retailing became one of shopping malls and box stores -- shopping malls whose store selection was the same in Portland, Maine and Portland, Oregon -- or Jackson, Michigan and Jackson, Mississippi. We see the same motels and restaurants everywhere. The kids whose parents owned a small-town department store who had any brains went into veterinary medicine and accountancy; the not-so-bright ones went down as K-Mart and Wal-Mart squeezed them out. Big banks devoured smaller banks to the extent that we may have five or six bad banks dominating finance in America -- for which the effects are now obvious.

Corporate farmers also squeezed out small farms... so it's not entirely an town phenomenon.

[??????????]

Most of those family owned shops overcharged for the products they offered anyway. Good riddance and God Bless the big box stores.