↓↓↓ Click below to see VIDEO ↓↓↓↓
President Obama should get some credit for pulling the American economy in a tailspin in 2009 and end a brutal recession before becoming a depression. But voters are punitive and are inclined to believe that Obama has flubbed the economy, which could cost Democrats in the Senate in the midterm elections just weeks away.
So why can not Obama get a break on the economy?
By comparing his record with four other postwar presidents who served two full terms reveals the answer. These changes are the five key indicators under Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, the first month of his presidency until October sixth year, just before the midterms:
Obama is half history in creating employment, reducing unemployment and overall GDP growth. Given that the economy was in the midst of the worst recession since when he took over in 1930, those numbers look pretty good.
The stock market has performed well with Obama, but largely because of the extraordinary stimulus measures by the Federal Reserve, which operates independently of the White House. The single best performing stock market of six happened to Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and now we know that in 1998 the stock market was in a bubble headed for a correction of 45%. (Gulp.)
The biggest disappointment in Obama's watch has been stagnant income, which is the only category that does worse. Disposable income per person, adjusted for inflation, rose only 4.9% during the first six years of Obama, less than half the average of the five two presidents -TERM. To some extent underestimate the problem of income, because DPI includes public subsidies to non-work, such as unemployment benefits and disability benefits. Both types of payments swelled in recent years. Without them, the number of admissions by Obama to be even worse.
Results measured in this way correlates with other data. The average household, adjusted for inflation, the income is still 5% lower than in January 2009 when Obama took office, according to Sentier Research. The biggest problem with the labor market seems to be new jobs that pay less, in general, the jobs created disappeared. While employers have created about 225,000 jobs a month so far this year, a healthy pace of job creation-income is only growing at 2% per year, which is about the same as inflation. This means that workers can not get ahead.
Lower levels of life because stagnant income purchasing power decreases. People work the same in order to pay less. It is a most satisfactory feeling. And it explains why support of Obama has declined steadily during his second term and why Democrats, who have lost credibility for his handling of the economy, it could lose six or more seats in the Senate in November, along with control of the upper chamber.
In favor of Obama, who has tried to promote policies to increase revenue, such as a higher minimum wage and more federal stimulus spending on construction projects. Republicans have blocked most of this work, citing cost issues and questions about whether they would help or hurt the economy eventually.
It is also worth asking whether any policy formulated in Washington - under any president - could solve the insoluble problem of stagnant incomes, as was evident even before the recession that began in late 2007, companies now have the flexibility to hire workers wherever cheaper, and are increasingly replacing technology for people. Washington will not change that.
Salary can recover and resume a similar path to last. But we are also in a time of profound technological change, like the industrial revolution in the 1800s, and may still be closer to the beginning of the transformation of the final. Digital technology has made obsolete many jobs and professions, not just rely on the vast riches that come with some innovative new smart ways to hold a business meeting, watch a movie or take a taxi. The digital revolution has eliminated many jobs for the middle class, especially in manufacturing, where workers of the assembly line is being replaced by robots and software. So far the new jobs that pay well not materialized to replace them. And few in Washington have ideas about how to create this type of work. (Note to politicians: Tax reductions or increases in itself does nothing to create jobs.)
If Republicans win the Senate in November, will control both houses of Congress, and has the ability to pass any law they believe will help increase revenue. Maybe they will be more successful than Obama. Or maybe they will run on the same immovable force, and voters blame next.
The final book in Rick Newman Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From failure to success. Follow him on Twitter: rickjnewman.
So why can not Obama get a break on the economy?
By comparing his record with four other postwar presidents who served two full terms reveals the answer. These changes are the five key indicators under Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, the first month of his presidency until October sixth year, just before the midterms:
Obama is half history in creating employment, reducing unemployment and overall GDP growth. Given that the economy was in the midst of the worst recession since when he took over in 1930, those numbers look pretty good.
The stock market has performed well with Obama, but largely because of the extraordinary stimulus measures by the Federal Reserve, which operates independently of the White House. The single best performing stock market of six happened to Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and now we know that in 1998 the stock market was in a bubble headed for a correction of 45%. (Gulp.)
Obama for this time becuse Economic Failure
The biggest disappointment in Obama's watch has been stagnant income, which is the only category that does worse. Disposable income per person, adjusted for inflation, rose only 4.9% during the first six years of Obama, less than half the average of the five two presidents -TERM. To some extent underestimate the problem of income, because DPI includes public subsidies to non-work, such as unemployment benefits and disability benefits. Both types of payments swelled in recent years. Without them, the number of admissions by Obama to be even worse.
Results measured in this way correlates with other data. The average household, adjusted for inflation, the income is still 5% lower than in January 2009 when Obama took office, according to Sentier Research. The biggest problem with the labor market seems to be new jobs that pay less, in general, the jobs created disappeared. While employers have created about 225,000 jobs a month so far this year, a healthy pace of job creation-income is only growing at 2% per year, which is about the same as inflation. This means that workers can not get ahead.
Lower levels of life because stagnant income purchasing power decreases. People work the same in order to pay less. It is a most satisfactory feeling. And it explains why support of Obama has declined steadily during his second term and why Democrats, who have lost credibility for his handling of the economy, it could lose six or more seats in the Senate in November, along with control of the upper chamber.
In favor of Obama, who has tried to promote policies to increase revenue, such as a higher minimum wage and more federal stimulus spending on construction projects. Republicans have blocked most of this work, citing cost issues and questions about whether they would help or hurt the economy eventually.
It is also worth asking whether any policy formulated in Washington - under any president - could solve the insoluble problem of stagnant incomes, as was evident even before the recession that began in late 2007, companies now have the flexibility to hire workers wherever cheaper, and are increasingly replacing technology for people. Washington will not change that.
Salary can recover and resume a similar path to last. But we are also in a time of profound technological change, like the industrial revolution in the 1800s, and may still be closer to the beginning of the transformation of the final. Digital technology has made obsolete many jobs and professions, not just rely on the vast riches that come with some innovative new smart ways to hold a business meeting, watch a movie or take a taxi. The digital revolution has eliminated many jobs for the middle class, especially in manufacturing, where workers of the assembly line is being replaced by robots and software. So far the new jobs that pay well not materialized to replace them. And few in Washington have ideas about how to create this type of work. (Note to politicians: Tax reductions or increases in itself does nothing to create jobs.)
If Republicans win the Senate in November, will control both houses of Congress, and has the ability to pass any law they believe will help increase revenue. Maybe they will be more successful than Obama. Or maybe they will run on the same immovable force, and voters blame next.
The final book in Rick Newman Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From failure to success. Follow him on Twitter: rickjnewman.
0 comments:
Post a Comment