Who takes the credit or the blame?

[Que]

I'm sure there is enough intellectual capital on this board to make the answer to these questins very broad, but I would like to keep it simple enough for a fifth grader to understand.

The economy is President Obama's fault because he took office and regardless what is going on a leader takes the blame. However, now that it appears the economy is getting somewhat better (e.g., companies returning jobs back to the U.S.), who takes the credit? Like I stated before, I know someone can trace something back to Lincoln's presidency, but does President Obama get the credit for things that improve while he is in office?

Also, if President Obama is not re-elected and the economy experiences a significant improvement in the first 90 days of the new President's term, who gets the credit?

 

[Lucas156]

We all do. We elected him. He is just one man I think he may have a part either way but is definitely not solely responsible good or bad. Theres your simple answer buddy.

 

[spearheadersarge]

Numbers trending in the right direction offer hope but I don't think anything the Prez has done is attributable to it. Conversly, his reckless spending spree and exponential expansion of government hasn't helped either. If after a new Pres takes office and a number of Obama's policies are repealed and THEN the economy takes off, then I would say that would be attributed to the new guy. Just one old guy's opinion....

 

[RockofStrength]

Unless the number increase is due to the government getting out of people's way and letting them run their own businesses without interference it's still a failure on the part of the administration and a black mark on our economy.

 

[Que]

Numbers trending in the right direction offer hope but I don't think anything the Prez has done is attributable to it. Conversly, his reckless spending spree and exponential expansion of government hasn't helped either. If after a new Pres takes office and a number of Obama's policies are repealed and THEN the economy takes off, then I would say that would be attributed to the new guy. Just one old guy's opinion....

Yeah, I would agree, but I didn't add all of that. I'm simply trying to figure out when/how credit or blame is attributed. I'm not an Obamaholic, but I'm not owned by any other party or candidate, either. So, I like to look at things from an even perspective. I see a lot of blame placed on President Obama and I can agree when it's obvious that the failure should be attributed to his actions.

It was funny how some gave Right to Work credit for the one company that is moving to Indiana, but that deal was in the process a LONG time ago. However, some will write in their own history that Right to Work is bringing jobs to Indiana. That could be the case at some point, but why give credit so easily to something or someone we agree with, but not when we disagree?

 

[Westside]

the president or .gov cannot create jobs. he/it can only create an environment that allows business to grow. The more taxes and regulations a business has to comply with the slower they grow.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm sure there is enough intellectual capital on this board to make the answer to these questins very broad, but I would like to keep it simple enough for a fifth grader to understand.

The economy is President Obama's fault because he took office and regardless what is going on a leader takes the blame. However, now that it appears the economy is getting somewhat better (e.g., companies returning jobs back to the U.S.), who takes the credit? Like I stated before, I know someone can trace something back to Lincoln's presidency, but does President Obama get the credit for things that improve while he is in office?

Also, if President Obama is not re-elected and the economy experiences a significant improvement in the first 90 days of the new President's term, who gets the credit?

I'm no economist, but...

Everyone (read: Most, at least the vocal ones) credits or blames the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for the economy. While his policies and tendencies might influence business folks to make a decision one way or another, I think if we're going to put credit or blame anywhere in government, it should be with the 535 folks over in the Capitol. No spending happens without their approval, and bills involving revenue have to start in what's sometimes called the Peoples' House, the House of Representatives.

The president does have some sway in that the Director of the Fed is an appointed position answerable to that office, and that's who sets interest rates, etc., but while all of those people figure in, it's businesspeople who decide to hire or not, to spend and grow their business or not, and so forth.

Bottom line: Who's responsible? Look at the TV, look at the newspapers, and look around you, but don't forget to look in the mirror. We all are.

My 2/100 FRN.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

Presidents get way too much credit for the economy, good and bad.

First of all, the economy is really not doing all that much better. Unemployment is certainly not, though because of certain indicators that are not relevant in the current situation, it looks like it.

Here's where it gets complicated. Think of it this way. You're in a sailboat, trying to go fast. You're going along at a certain speed. Some idiot on the boat decides to dangle his foot in the water, creating a drag. At the same time, the wind picks up and you increase your speed.

If you don't understand simple physics, you might think the guy's foot in the water made you go faster. Or you might argue that it's not hurting anything, because you're going faster.

The truth is that you KNOW FOR A FACT that a foot in the water will slow you down. So there must be other factors at work, and if he took his foot out of the water the boat would gain even more speed.

The government has a lot more power to hurt the economy than to help it. The economy functions best and most efficiently when it's left completely alone. Every interference is a foot in the water.

We KNOW Obama's policies have hurt the economy, because certain economic principles are as ironclad as physics. This gets clouded, however, because some people who call themselves economists, and who even win Nobel prizes, are really political ideologists. Also, lots of people understand the basic laws of physics, very few understand the basic laws of economics.

No particular President is to blame for the crash. No particular President can be given credit for a recovery.

One example that stands out as an exception was the Reagan presidency. Sound economic principles got the economy moving, and that benefitted the country for 20 years.

If you look at Presidents who hurt the economy most recently you can look to Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. Reagan stands alone as someone who helped the economy. The two Bushes hurt it some. Clinton hurt it a little more than the Bushes, but not that much. Obama is all by himself as far as presidents who have hurt the economy. No one has been as bad since Roosevelt.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I'm for giving credit where credit is due, but for the life of me, I can't come up with anything that the administration has initiated that can be linked to the perception out there that the economy is improving.

Obama proposed starting work on "shovel ready" projects which could have conceivably resulted in a hiring spike, but I'm unaware of any that have been started, and the one large one, the Keystone Pipeline, he essentially vetoed.

He has proposed reduced corporate taxes, especially on manufacturing companies, but it's just a proposal, so nothing there, and that's a GOP idea anyway.

He certainly hasn't been an advocate for government getting out of the way, so if red tape has been cut, that's not due to his administration.

Obama has been touting the auto bailout as a "success", but I think that is far from certain, and good or bad, the bailouts were initiated under Bush anyway.

Solyndra and other "green initiatives" Obama hung his hat on have been busts, as well.

I'm a believer that is you don't know what you did to fix a problem, then you didn't fix it, at best you got lucky. More likely, the problem will return.

I suspect that any perceived recovery that has been happening is due primarily to the American consumer wearying of 3 plus years of uncharacteristic personal fiscal restraint and beginning to overspend again, coupled with a dose of irrational exuberance from rising stock market values, which themselves are most likely more due to troubling conditions elsewhere in the world rather than strength here.

So, for right now I'm calling it a cyclical recovery, and not an Obama recovery.

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I also think the media, which is mostly in the tank for Obama, has decided that they better start telling the story that things are getting better if they want to keep their guy in the White House.

But I'm willing to listen to an argument that this Administration has enacted policies that have truly put us on the path to prosperity, and we're out of the woods because of their actions.

 

[rockhopper46038]

We KNOW Obama's policies have hurt the economy, because certain economic principles are as ironclad as physics. This gets clouded, however, because some people who call themselves economists, and who even win Nobel prizes, are really political ideologists.

Krugman really IS a D-bag.

 

[Que]

Presidents get way too much credit for the economy, good and bad.

First of all, the economy is really not doing all that much better. Unemployment is certainly not, though because of certain indicators that are not relevant in the current situation, it looks like it.

Here's where it gets complicated. Think of it this way. You're in a sailboat, trying to go fast. You're going along at a certain speed. Some idiot on the boat decides to dangle his foot in the water, creating a drag. At the same time, the wind picks up and you increase your speed.

If you don't understand simple physics, you might think the guy's foot in the water made you go faster. Or you might argue that it's not hurting anything, because you're going faster.

The truth is that you KNOW FOR A FACT that a foot in the water will slow you down. So there must be other factors at work, and if he took his foot out of the water the boat would gain even more speed.

The government has a lot more power to hurt the economy than to help it. The economy functions best and most efficiently when it's left completely alone. Every interference is a foot in the water.

We KNOW Obama's policies have hurt the economy, because certain economic principles are as ironclad as physics. This gets clouded, however, because some people who call themselves economists, and who even win Nobel prizes, are really political ideologists. Also, lots of people understand the basic laws of physics, very few understand the basic laws of economics.

No particular President is to blame for the crash. No particular President can be given credit for a recovery.

One example that stands out as an exception was the Reagan presidency. Sound economic principles got the economy moving, and that benefitted the country for 20 years.

If you look at Presidents who hurt the economy most recently you can look to Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. Reagan stands alone as someone who helped the economy. The two Bushes hurt it some. Clinton hurt it a little more than the Bushes, but not that much. Obama is all by himself as far as presidents who have hurt the economy. No one has been as bad since Roosevelt.

I really like this answer! I recognize that Reagan was definitely one of a kind. I will give him props for what he did in a very short time to turn a bad economy around. However, combining your retort with BOR's, I recognize that the House was controlled by the Democrats during Reagan's time, so how much of the credit for the incredible turn around can be attributed to the House? Do you think it was probably a time when everyone (Republican and Democrat) recognized where we were headed and decided to get on board? Could that possibly happen again if the right person is elected to lead the charge?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Presidents get way too much credit for the economy, good and bad.

First of all, the economy is really not doing all that much better. Unemployment is certainly not, though because of certain indicators that are not relevant in the current situation, it looks like it.

Here's where it gets complicated. Think of it this way. You're in a sailboat, trying to go fast. You're going along at a certain speed. Some idiot on the boat decides to dangle his foot in the water, creating a drag. At the same time, the wind picks up and you increase your speed.

If you don't understand simple physics, you might think the guy's foot in the water made you go faster. Or you might argue that it's not hurting anything, because you're going faster.

The truth is that you KNOW FOR A FACT that a foot in the water will slow you down. So there must be other factors at work, and if he took his foot out of the water the boat would gain even more speed.

The government has a lot more power to hurt the economy than to help it. The economy functions best and most efficiently when it's left completely alone. Every interference is a foot in the water.

We KNOW Obama's policies have hurt the economy, because certain economic principles are as ironclad as physics. This gets clouded, however, because some people who call themselves economists, and who even win Nobel prizes, are really political ideologists. Also, lots of people understand the basic laws of physics, very few understand the basic laws of economics.

No particular President is to blame for the crash. No particular President can be given credit for a recovery.

One example that stands out as an exception was the Reagan presidency. Sound economic principles got the economy moving, and that benefitted the country for 20 years.

If you look at Presidents who hurt the economy most recently you can look to Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. Reagan stands alone as someone who helped the economy. The two Bushes hurt it some. Clinton hurt it a little more than the Bushes, but not that much. Obama is all by himself as far as presidents who have hurt the economy. No one has been as bad since Roosevelt.

All excellent points, but too soon for me to rep you again. The points you made about Reagan's policies doing good for 20 years and Clinton hurting it a bit more than Daddy and Junior Bush brought to mind something I got in an email years ago. As I recall, Clinton "balanced the budget"... but he did it by raping Medicare and Social Security. I don't recall all the details; that's a precis of it, though. Fitting, I thought, that someone penned:

The State of the Union address President Clinton Should have Given

"Mr. Vice President. Mr. Speaker. Members of Congress. My Fellow Citizens.

I banged her. I banged her like a cheap gong. Which is not news, folks, because if you think Monica Lewinsky was the only skin flute player in my orchestra, you haven't been paying attention. The only babes in D.C. I HAVEN'T tried to bag are the First Lady, Reno, Albright, and Shalala, mostly because they're a little older than I like and they have legs that former Houston Oiler Earl Campbell would envy.

Which isn't to say I don't appreciate Hillary...I do. If not for the ice-water coursing through her veins, I'd be pumping gas into farm equipment in Hope, Arkansas, and she'd be married to the President.

So, let me set the record straight. I dodged the draft, hid FBI files, smoked dope, flipped Whitewater property, set up a new Korean wing in the White House, fired the travel staff, paid hush money to Hubbell, sold the Lincoln bedroom like an upscale Motel 6, and grabbed every ass that entered the Oval Office. Got it? Good.

Six years ago, there's not a man, woman, or child who didn't know I was as horny as Woody Allen. But, you elected me anyway, which turned out to be a good move on your part. Your other choice was Bush, an aging baseball player and part-time resident of some place called 'Kennebunkport' who thought he could bomb his way into the White House. Before him, it was Reagan, who left the office with the same Alzheimer's he came in with. There was Carter before him who brought you a 17% prime interest rate, smiling the whole time like his lithium drip had just kicked in. Before him, Nixon coined, but never really understood, the concept of 'plausible deniability,' and almost got a one-way ticket to San Clemente for his crackerjack style of governing. It goes without saying that Johnson was an inbred, power-mad war criminal whose major contribution to American society was Agent Orange. And John Kennedy, who was a little naughty himself, didn't hang around long enough for America to spot that curious atavistic tic for 'beaver-wrestling' shared by at least a dozen former residents of the White House. Which brings me back to my point.

Since I have been playing first Saxophone here at the White House, government is doing more for less. The budget is balanced for the first time since JFK did a one gun salute to Marilyn, a fact the press didn't seem to care about, evidently. Unemployment is so low today a blind felon can get a job as a night-watchman. The stock market is higher than a D-student on a full gram of cocaine, and anyone with a degree from a junior college who can spell 'internet' has enough money to ponder the annual maintenance cost of his boat, instead of where their next meal is coming from.

Bottom line: I'm running a country here and I'm doing it with my willie showing. What I'm asking for is your support, not a date with your daughter (unless, of course, she's a hottie with big hair and thin ankles, and then I'd like to discuss it). In the meantime, think about where you are today and what kind of life you're living before you get too interested in where I'm parking the Presidential limousine.

God bless the United States and Thank God for little girls. Good night."

So someone thought that Clinton should have taken the credit for the economy, despite his Presidency being at the very end of that 20 year term from Reagan's Inauguration. Someone thought that none of the credit should go to the Republican Congress that took over in 1996, after he spent so much political capital pushing the AWB and the Brady law. Someone thought it would be appropriate to put words in his mouth disrespecting his predecessors on both sides of the aisle, and make a joke about doing it.

Yeah, it's a joke. I know this. Much of humor has its roots in truth, though, and this isn't so much funny as it is ironic. Many people, myself included, read this and spent the whole time nodding, accepting it; Sure, I knew it was wrong to lie, as Clinton did, and moreso to do so under oath. At the time, I was still a liberal, though. Live and learn.

We had a good economy during the 1992-2000 years, tanking somewhat near the end, IIRC, but was it Clinton's doing? More importantly, if it was his doing, did he do it by honest means? Based on my opening premise it might be true, but his means were not honest. (Admittedly, I don't know if that's 100% true, but at this point, I'm treating it as if it is and if it's not, I hope someone will point me to something with which to educate myself.)

Coming back to Que's question... Dross raises a good point: If good policies affect us for 20 years, for how long do bad policies affect the economy?
Does Obama get the credit? That all depends: We're less than 20 years out from Clinton's presidency, aren't we?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Que]

All excellent points, but too soon for me to rep you again. The points you made about Reagan's policies doing good for 20 years and Clinton hurting it a bit more than Daddy and Junior Bush brought to mind something I got in an email years ago. As I recall, Clinton "balanced the budget"... but he did it by raping Medicare and Social Security. I don't recall all the details; that's a precis of it, though. Fitting, I thought, that someone penned:

So someone thought that Clinton should have taken the credit for the economy, despite his Presidency being at the very end of that 20 year term from Reagan's Inauguration. Someone thought that none of the credit should go to the Republican Congress that took over in 1996, after he spent so much political capital pushing the AWB and the Brady law. Someone thought it would be appropriate to put words in his mouth disrespecting his predecessors on both sides of the aisle, and make a joke about doing it.

Yeah, it's a joke. I know this. Much of humor has its roots in truth, though, and this isn't so much funny as it is ironic. Many people, myself included, read this and spent the whole time nodding, accepting it; Sure, I knew it was wrong to lie, as Clinton did, and moreso to do so under oath. At the time, I was still a liberal, though. Live and learn.

We had a good economy during the 1992-2000 years, tanking somewhat near the end, IIRC, but was it Clinton's doing? More importantly, if it was his doing, did he do it by honest means? Based on my opening premise, and admittedly, I don't know if that's 100% true, but at this point, I'm treating it as if it is and if it's not, I hope someone will point me to something with which to educate myself.

Coming back to Que's question... Dross raises a good point: If good policies affect us for 20 years, for how long do bad policies affect the economy?
Does Obama get the credit? That all depends: We're less than 20 years out from Clinton's presidency, aren't we?

Blessings,
Bill

I really don't want to get bogged down in the mire, but if Clinton "balanced the budget" in the way you described, wouldn't that have been with what are now called entitlements?

What makes 20 years the bar? I thought the economy was doing great until Obama came into office? This is the whole purpose of my thread. I didn't hear anything about the economy being bad until the very end of Bush's second term. Obama attempted to place the blame on Bush and everyone, including me, said, "It's your watch, so it's your fault!"

I guess I'm looking at this from a micro instead of macro point of view. Even when Clinton ran against G. Bush, I don't recall hearing much about the economy being bad, until Clinton's famous words, "It's the economy, stupid." So, was the economy bad as the time or not? If so, who was the blame and if it was "fixed" during Clinton's term, why doesn't he get the credit? Did he ride on the back of G. Bush's efforts or did he do something to make the economy better?

 

[jblomenberg16]

The weaker dollar against some of the other foreign currencies gets the credit. That has neutralized part of the cost advantage some of the other countries like India and China have had for a while.


I'm not an economist, just a guy with an MBA. One of the things I've said for the last few years is that a major effect of a global economy will be the leveling of the standard of living playing field.

The level will come up around the world as global companies scamper around to follow the cheap labor. The level will come down a bit in the developed world as it tries to reach an equilibrium.

This is an extremely over simplified model, but bear with me.

Major raw materials like oil, metals, chemicals, etc. are more or less commodities now, meaning they have similar value in the market all the way around the world. So the only advantage of global manufacturing is the cheap labor and lower overhead due to fewer regulations for safety, building codes, and environmental factors.


Many "developing" countries are now seeing what uncontrolled growth means to both worker safety and to pollution, so are tighting up on those issues, thus driving both the labor and overhead costs up.


Much to our advantage, we have a significantly better infrastructure, and a work force and factories ready to go to accept the jobs as they come back in.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I really like this answer! I recognize that Reagan was definitely one of a kind. I will give him props for what he did in a very short time to turn a bad economy around. However, combining your retort with BOR's, I recognize that the House was controlled by the Democrats during Reagan's time, so how much of the credit for the incredible turn around can be attributed to the House? Do you think it was probably a time when everyone (Republican and Democrat) recognized where we were headed and decided to get on board? Could that possibly happen again if the right person is elected to lead the charge?

Mr. Reagan was a statesman, a real leader of men, someone who didn't mince words when it got down to brass tacks. We won't see his like again, but will we see another statesman, another leader who can really bring people together? Is that even possible in the megapolarized, partisan climate of Washington today? Can it happen when people are being encouraged to believe that "American" is a synonym not for excellence and greatness but rather for mediocrity?

Whomever this unknown statesman is, he will have his work cut out for him. I feel confident in saying that the current community organizer has neither the capacity nor the strength of character to even envision the goals, much less chart a course to reach them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I really don't want to get bogged down in the mire, but if Clinton "balanced the budget" in the way you described, wouldn't that have been with what are now called entitlements?

What makes 20 years the bar? I thought the economy was doing great until Obama came into office? This is the whole purpose of my thread. I didn't hear anything about the economy being bad until the very end of Bush's second term. Obama attempted to place the blame on Bush and everyone, including me, said, "It's your watch, so it's your fault!"

I guess I'm looking at this from a micro instead of macro point of view. Even when Clinton ran against G. Bush, I don't recall hearing much about the economy being bad, until Clinton's famous words, "It's the economy, stupid." So, was the economy bad as the time or not? If so, who was the blame and if it was "fixed" during Clinton's term, why doesn't he get the credit? Did he ride on the back of G. Bush's efforts or did he do something to make the economy better?

I took the "20 year" thing from Dross' post, not from any official source. Was the economy doing great under GWB? Maybe at the beginning, I don't know. As I said, I'm not an economist in even the most remote sense of the term. FWIW, though, I didn't and don't place the blame for the economy on either GWB or BHO, at least not solely, but the "It's Bush's fault!" refrain got very tiresome very quickly, and is, I think, symptomatic of the whole philosophy wherein the blame always belongs to someone else. Again referencing Reagan, he inherited an absolutely abysmal situation, but he didn't point fingers or place blame as I recall, he just rolled up his sleeves and got to work.

Does the Democratic Congress get any credit for Reagan's success? I'd be hypocritical to say no; again, they passed the bills, he signed them. I do think his.... "presence"... his strength of character was a factor in getting things done in Washington, where another man might not have had the charisma to influence people in that way. Clinton had charisma, to be sure, but while he certainly WAS a character, I cannot with even a semblance of a straight face claim he had any. (And as an aside, I always thought it was Hillary who issued that insult, "It's the economy, STUPID!"... which is why someone made a bumper sticker in the 2008 elections that I still have:

"It's the Bill of Rights, STUPID!"

The irony was (IS!) palpable.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

As much as i hope im wrong .... I think alot of how good the economy is doing now is in direct correlation for the "low" gas prices during november-december (along with christmas season shopping). As gas creeps upward i think the economy will faulter again.

 

[dross]

However, combining your retort with BOR's, I recognize that the House was controlled by the Democrats during Reagan's time, so how much of the credit for the incredible turn around can be attributed to the House? Do you think it was probably a time when everyone (Republican and Democrat) recognized where we were headed and decided to get on board? Could that possibly happen again if the right person is elected to lead the charge?

I wish what your're saying is what happened.

What Reagan was able to do illustrates the power of the presidency, just like what Obama did the first year parallels it, only with bad stuff.

The power of a president is that he is elected by the entire country. Reagan had to deal with a Democrat congress, but he was so popular that Congress would have been risking their seats to go against him. When a president is popular right after the election, you have to assume that the poeple like what he ran on. So Reagan was able to get large tax rate cuts, and cut the growth of spending in some areas. (We haven't had actual spending cuts that I'm ever aware of, just cuts in the rate of increase.)

Obama got his massive record breaking spending bills through for the same reason Reagan was able to make cuts - his popularity. Of course with a Democrat Congress it was much easier for Obama, which is why he got so much passed.

All excellent points, but too soon for me to rep you again. The points you made about Reagan's policies doing good for 20 years and Clinton hurting it a bit more than Daddy and Junior Bush brought to mind something I got in an email years ago. As I recall, Clinton "balanced the budget"... but he did it by raping Medicare and Social Security. I don't recall all the details; that's a precis of it, though. Fitting, I thought, that someone penned:

We had a good economy during the 1992-2000 years, tanking somewhat near the end, IIRC, but was it Clinton's doing? More importantly, if it was his doing, did he do it by honest means? Based on my opening premise it might be true, but his means were not honest. (Admittedly, I don't know if that's 100% true, but at this point, I'm treating it as if it is and if it's not, I hope someone will point me to something with which to educate myself.)

Blessings,
Bill

A couple of things on the balanced budget. Several factors converged. First, the economy was doing so well that tax revenues were much higher than projected.

Second, again, politics converged. In 94 an absolutely earthshaking even ocurred. The Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the first time since the 40s. Most of that time they didn't have a majority in either house.

The landslide takeover by the Republicans in 94 meant that Clinton had to dance to their tune. They passed a reduced budget, which Clinton had to sign because he didn't think he could win the battle. As an aside, welfare reform was a feature Clinton fought tooth and nail, then finally signed reluctantly. So spending was slowed down, and revenues were high, AND through an accounting trick we ignored that SS and Medicare were broke.

You can't give credit to Clinton for signing an austere measure when he had fought it until he was forced politically.

Of course then he did the smart political thing, which was then to claim credit for things he fought against, which he's still doing to this day.

Just like the Obama adminstration took credit for increased oil production when they've done everything in their power to slow production, and the only reason production is up is from the leases signed under the Bush administration. Of course though, they'll claim credit and the press will back them up.