Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

[dmek25]

i agree. jobs being created are the biggest driver of an economy. that's almost like people blaming Bush for the high gas prices. almost as ridiculous

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Agreed, we had years and years of various factors leading up to this.

I blame the lack of savings and growing consumerism amongst the general populace, more than anything. In the 90s and 00s, Americans just decided they didn't need to save money anymore.

Agree with the lack of saving's / use of credit cards , ect. Also , Goldman Sacks , Washington Mutual selling assets , then driving up the " value " , only to short them ... some of these bums should be in jail .

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's nice, but the performance of the stock market has ZERO to do with the administration in place.

Sneed your better the that. The stock market goes up and down all the time based of goverment policies. Thats also a nice graph but I notice they left off 7 yrs of Bush's time in office and why does it cut off 6 months of Obama's.

[firstdown]

This is the best comment from the article.

"Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity."

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sneed your better the that. The stock market goes up and down all the time based of goverment policies. Thats also a nice graph but I notice they left off 7 yrs of Bush's time in office and why does it cut off 6 months of Obama's.

The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

This is the best comment from the article.

"Under President Obama, only federal spending is going up; jobs, business startups, and incomes are all down. It is proof that the government can't spend its way to prosperity."

No, that quote is misleading. Jobs are indeed down under Obama, but that's not his fault. The decline in jobs is the reason incomes are down. Otherwise, incomes are stable.

But I do agree that spending more does not equal prosperity.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

That's nice, but the performance of the stock market has ZERO to do with the administration in place.

Nice, a dual-color chart of natural behaviors of the stock market.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i agree. jobs being created are the biggest driver of an economy.

Not when they're Government jobs.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

The stock market is irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. But over the course of multiple years, no government policy can have any kind of prevailing effect. The data shows what the data shows my friend.

As for your note on the selective sampling used in those graphs you're right, any time you're looking at a 1-2 year period of stock market returns, you're not getting a large enough sample to conclude anything meaningful.

We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We do agree that the stock market can be irrational and reactionary on a day-to-day basis. You don't think that the decisions over the past year or more to bail out the banks, car companies, etc... did not have a long term affect on the stock market?

First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.

[Trample the Elderly]

Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Buster

Not when they're Government jobs.

Government jobs still stimulate economic growth, just not in a sustainable way.

The theory is that while people are unemployed, you might as well put them to work doing something productive. It doesn't do the nation any good to have people sitting on their duff when they could be building better roads or fixing things.

So the government pays them, they take that money and spend it, which helps businesses. Businesses then have more money to invest, they begin to grow, and they start adding jobs.

The key is to make sure the government jobs, which act as the catalyst for growth, are cut back once the economy starts adding jobs. If this isn't managed well (which often it is not), then you get overspending and severe deficit problems.

If Obama can successfully cut spending once the economy is running well, then he will have succeeded. Problem for him is that a second wave of economic recession is coming, due to no fault of his own, which will derail his ability to cut the deficit. He'll get voted out in 2012 if the GOP plays its cards right.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

First, on auto bail-outs, no I don't think that has any meaningful long-term impact on the performance of American companies. In the end that only affected a few companies, a drop in the bucket compared to the stock market overall.

One could make the argument that without bailing out the banks, we would have entered a gigantic depression due to frozen lending. That particular bailout action had to be taken, or businesses nationwide would have lost the access to capital and hence lost the ability to invest and grow their businesses. Our whole economy could have ground to a halt.

Now, one could also say that the bank bailout caused us to drive up our national debt, which pushes down the value of the dollar, which makes our imports more expensive, which costs American companies over the long run. So maybe the bank bailout affected the stock market outlook, taking it from a 6.75% expected return to a 6.5%. That would be a reasonable assertion.

But nothing an administration does can cause stocks to gain ground during one period of time vs lose ground during another. Policies, especially those of the Fed, can swing stocks maybe 1% up or down, but as you know the stock market makes much larger swings from week to week and year to year than just 1% here and there. Economic conditions are what drive the ups and downs of the stock market.

We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Income falls 3.2% during Obama's term thus far

They can cook the books anyway they want. It's probably worse than that. I say get off the books. Even during a depression booze still sells. Come up with a good blend and watch out for the revenue man.

Sometimes I think you should be banned for the sole reason that you add nothing productive to the discussion.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by firstdown

We pretty much agree on this I was just syaing goverment policy does impact the stock market but should have been clear on how much impact.

Fair enough. I definitely shouldn't be absolute in my statements. It can have some effect for sure, just not nearly enough to justify drawing conclusions from those ridiculous graphs posted earlier in the thread.