When does Obama take ownership of economy?

[Ferocious]

Vote!

Regardless of the degree of ownership (in your opinion) a President has of the economy....when do you think that will happen considering the speed of things happening.

I say one year.

 

[alchemize]

9/11/2009.

 

[ccbadd]

He'll only do it when after it turns around, until then it's "Bush's fault" like everything else. At the rate he is spending, it may never happen.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

 

[umbrella39]

:roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

Too bad lying is allowed

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

50% responsibility. Now they have 100% responsibility.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
He'll only do it when after it turns around, until then it's "Bush's fault" like everything else. At the rate he is spending, it may never happen.

That certainly matches the precedent set by the Republicans, who spent the last eight years blaming the economy on Clinton (and sometimes even Carter). Of course they simultaneously tried to claim the economy was booming due to Bush's tax cuts ... even as we lost several million jobs.

The truth is no President "owns" the economy. It's too big, there are far too many factors at play, and changes take a long time. The President can have significant influence, however, both through the programs he pushes through and through the mood he sets for the country.

 

[nageov3t]

January, 2013.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: ccbadd
He'll only do it when after it turns around, until then it's "Bush's fault" like everything else. At the rate he is spending, it may never happen.

That certainly matches the precedent set by the Republicans, who spent the last eight years blaming the economy on Clinton (and sometimes even Carter). Of course they simultaneously tried to claim the economy was booming due to Bush's tax cuts ... even as we lost several million jobs.

The truth is no President "owns" the economy. It's too big, there are far too many factors at play, and changes take a long time. The President can have significant influence, however, both through the programs he pushes through and through the mood he sets for the country.

True, I would put 1/3 on the federal reserve, 1/3 on congress, 1/3 on the president. Although the president really just has yes/no power.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

LOL, I remember the Republicans in this forum arguing that Clinton was responsible for at least one year (and maybe two) into Bush's first term, and the Republicans had full control of Congress then too.

Anyway, I'll say a year or so to reflect the new policies and give them time to pass or fail. That seems fair, especially by previous standards.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
He'll only do it when after it turns around, until then it's "Bush's fault" like everything else. At the rate he is spending, it may never happen.

this. only time the Dems (hell or repubs) admit "control" is when its a postive. IF its a negitive its always the others fault. No matter ho much time has passed.

IF the economy does not turn around in the next 2 years they will still be saying the same old shit.

 

[retrospooty]

That's a loaded question. the answer is all over the place. In alot of way we are still dealing with things that Reagan did in the 1980's and in some other ways things Obama does matters now - like the immediate effect of consumer confidence.

In Obama's words, the day he became president he was responsible for the economy. It is now his job to deal with it. That does not mean where we are is his fault - because obviously it is not. He inherited a shithole. All you can say is that he is responsible for his own actions and he is responsible for where we go from here.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

Right... so they should have voted and implemented changes and watched them take effect in a cyclical economy before they were even sworn into office in early 2007?

Like anyone, even the more dimwitted among us doesnt see your comment as pure crap.

 

[Fox5]

Considering we only get to vote for the President once every 4 years, I'll evaluate his success or failure when the next presidential election comes around.

IMO, Bush was already a solid failure after his first 4 years, and I actually liked him when he ran originally.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

LOL, I remember the Republicans in this forum arguing that Clinton was responsible for at least one year (and maybe two) into Bush's first term, and the Republicans had full control of Congress then too.

Anyway, I'll say a year or so to reflect the new policies and give them time to pass or fail. That seems fair, especially by previous standards.

I dont think Clinton was every really blamed for causing the internet bubble. That was largely a private capital bundle and conservatives mearly pointed out the recession started under his term. The liberals pretty much blamed the downturn on bush when he took office.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I would give him about 4 years.

I don't expect that the economy will be much better than it is now, so he'll probably deserve credit for not having done much to improve our situation. However, that's much better than Bush did since under Bush the economy made a dramatic transformation in the direction of becoming a third world economy. The damage was done under Bush and previous administrations; Obama will be at fault for failing to fix the mess he inherited.

 

[Darwin333]

Just like everything else in politics, they will take credit for the good and blame the bad on someone else. Both sides have been playing by that rule for as long as I can remember.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

LOL, I remember the Republicans in this forum arguing that Clinton was responsible for at least one year (and maybe two) into Bush's first term, and the Republicans had full control of Congress then too.

Anyway, I'll say a year or so to reflect the new policies and give them time to pass or fail. That seems fair, especially by previous standards.

I dont think Clinton was every really blamed for causing the internet bubble. That was largely a private capital bundle and conservatives mearly pointed out the recession started under his term. The liberals pretty much blamed the downturn on bush when he took office.

You can't honestly sit there and say that there were not many GOP's on this very forum that blamed Clinton (some still do) for a big part of first few years of Bush's term, can you? I also am not naive enough to say that the dems here didn't blame Bush from day #1 either. It works both ways. With that in mind, I still think it takes a year or so to get the new policies in place and see which direction we're going in.

 

[Jaskalas]

The concept, particularly with a timeframe, of Presidential ownership of the economy is a very stupid idea.

You should look towards policies enacted and their effects or lack thereof. Then you can, perhaps, blame the President for those policies even though it is Congress as a whole who crafted and passed such legislation.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The Democrats, including Obama, took responsibility for the economy in 2006 when they won control of Congress.

LOL, I remember the Republicans in this forum arguing that Clinton was responsible for at least one year (and maybe two) into Bush's first term, and the Republicans had full control of Congress then too.

Anyway, I'll say a year or so to reflect the new policies and give them time to pass or fail. That seems fair, especially by previous standards.

I dont think Clinton was every really blamed for causing the internet bubble. That was largely a private capital bundle and conservatives mearly pointed out the recession started under his term. The liberals pretty much blamed the downturn on bush when he took office.

You can't honestly sit there and say that there were not many GOP's on this very forum that blamed Clinton (some still do) for a big part of first few years of Bush's term, can you? I also am not naive enough to say that the dems here didn't blame Bush from day #1 either. It works both ways. With that in mind, I still think it takes a year or so to get the new policies in place and see which direction we're going in.

Yes i can honestly say there is big difference between saying a recession started at the end the clinton admin and saying it was his fault. Most conservatives realized it was a private equity bubble and part of a business cycle. Liberals for the most part where blaming bush for the recession from day one and comparing current economic condition to good time of the artificial dot com bubble.

And I completely agree that it does take time for policy to come into play and that is where Obama has screwed up. HE promised immediate relief with his "stimulus package" When that did not work out, he said it was never a short term plan. And now that unemployment numbers dipped a little, he saying the package has saved us all(even though only a small portion of stimulus has been spent). The economy was started to improve before the stimulus was passed. Sorry I cant stomach his rhetoric.

As for the current recession, there is plenty of blame to go around on both parties and the fed. The fed kept interest rates too low for too long which fed into the housing bubble, which is something even paul krugman thought was a good idea at the time.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I would give him about 4 years.

I don't expect that the economy will be much better than it is now, so he'll probably deserve credit for not having done much to improve our situation. However, that's much better than Bush did since under Bush the economy made a dramatic transformation in the direction of becoming a third world economy. The damage was done under Bush and previous administrations; Obama will be at fault for failing to fix the mess he inherited.

This is probably a topic for another thread but I am really interested in hearing your argument on how Bush, or any other president, is responsible for the housing bubble and consumers maxing out their credit cards and/or using their homes as ATM machines. I can think of dozens of things that helped get us to were we are today that can be attributed to the last 3 or 4 presidents and Congress (both D and R).

 

[Rockinacoustic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
The concept, particularly with a timeframe, of Presidential ownership of the economy is a very stupid idea.

You should look towards policies enacted and their effects or lack thereof. Then you can, perhaps, blame the President for those policies even though it is Congress as a whole who crafted and passed such legislation.

Agreed.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
This is probably a topic for another thread but I am really interested in hearing your argument on how Bush, or any other president, is responsible for the housing bubble and consumers maxing out their credit cards and/or using their homes as ATM machines. I can think of dozens of things that helped get us to were we are today that can be attributed to the last 3 or 4 presidents and Congress (both D and R).

he signed into law the second mortgage act here in texas.

not that texas had anything to do with idiots in california paying a half a million for a shotgun shack in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Darwin333
This is probably a topic for another thread but I am really interested in hearing your argument on how Bush, or any other president, is responsible for the housing bubble and consumers maxing out their credit cards and/or using their homes as ATM machines. I can think of dozens of things that helped get us to were we are today that can be attributed to the last 3 or 4 presidents and Congress (both D and R).

he signed into law the second mortgage act here in texas.

not that texas had anything to do with idiots in california paying a half a million for a shotgun shack in the middle of nowhere.

And that is what led to the economic downturn in Texas? An even better question, at least when dealing with consumer borrowing, do you think politicians should be held responsible for dumb decisions made by the consumer? I understand there was/is some predatory lending taking place that should be fixed but for the most part is it the governments fault that I maxed out my credit card or used my house as an ATM?