Tuesday, September 4, 2012
End-of-Term Report
http://www.economist.com/node/21561909 Due 10 Sep 2012. What does The Economist say about Obama's record? Do you agree or disagree? As always, discuss from an economics perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jaime Caldaro
ReplyDeleteThe Economists comments that his response to the crisis and recession was impressive, but his plans to reshape the economy haven't done well. I agree that Obama has supplemented many critical policies but didn't meet part with his initial quota on reshaping the economy. His housing reform on refinancing didn't work as well as he had planned. They had targeted 7m-9m to refinance their homes when only about 2.3m refinanced. But he did keep and/or create 3.4m jobs. Causing the unemployment rate to stagger down slowly.
The Economist reports that Obama's response to the crisis was strong, but some of his plans, including green energy and high-speed rail, did not go as planned. Obama responded to the crisis by executing stress tests on banks, and bailing out GM and Chrysler, which I agree was a crucial first step in economic recovery. However, Obama had big hopes for green energy, which did not end well because of the cheap competition from China. Overall, I agree that Obama has made some strong strides forward in recovering the economy.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist states that Mr. Obama's response to the failing economy was "impressive but his attempt to reshape the economy was misfired". I agree that Mr. Obama's attempt to reshape the economy were impressive. I also agree that SOME of his policies were misfired for example Industrial Policies on green energy. But most of his policies saved countless jobs and turned downward spiraling economy into a slow mountain climb. Most of his policies were aimed at helping the middle/lower middle class and not the upper/upper middle class. Most of Mr. Obama's policies were side walled by the Republican controlled Senate(or house i forget which one). All of Mr. Obama's policies were steps toward saving out economy.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist says that Cbama's "handling of the crisis and recession were impressive" but his "efforts to reshape the economy" back fired on him. I agree with that statement because he helped carmarkers emerge from bankruptcy, executed stress tests on banks and added other polices that did help a bit but he falsey miscalculated and spent way too much money and created expections that he could not meet such as remaking the american economy and devoting to clean energy.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist says that Obama had an impressive response to the economy but many of his plans were not successful. I agree that he did the best with what he could. He came in to a terrible situation and gave it his all to make it better. However, I also agree that many of his plans did fall through, but I don't blame him because of the lack of support the had. He was shut down with almost every idea he had and I believe his plans would have worked better had he had a majorly democratic party. With that aside, with what he started with, he accomplished some things that saved the economy from being a lot worse like bailing out GM and Chrysler and rescuing banks.
ReplyDeleteIn the Economist's perspective, Obama's handling of the crisis and recession were impressive, but his acts to re-shape the economy have failed many times; causing America's public finances current state to be a prime result of his misfired efforts. Do I agree or disagree? I seldom agree with what it usually said about Obama and his term in office because I understood and still understand that Obama had a plan, but had to face several obstacles to make these plans work. Obama had a lot of mess to clean up when he came into office. I agree that a portion of his ideas to reshape the economy ended up less successful than General Motors and Chrysler, but at the end of the day, his aim for a better economy was the general right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist juxtaposes the Obama's administrations positive and negative handlings of the economy for the past four years. By shedding light on both sides, The Economist is able to give a fair grading record of the Presidents handling of the economy. Based on the fact presented to me in the article, would have to go on record as saying I agree with The Economist viewpoint on the Obama’s presidency. Although as individuals we might not be actively feeling the economic recovery that is happening as we speak the economy as a whole is improving. Although President Obama pushed for many necessary reforms, he was almost always blocked by the unbreakable Republican Obstructionism. Obama has saved millions of jobs that would have gone under if the country would have stayed the course back in 2008. The idea that because of Presidents Obama’s policy decision, that America has been transformed into some kind of “post-apocalyptic hellscape”, that many republicans have been attributing to President Obama’s policy making is simply not true. Given those positive aspects, there are still some legitimate debates that should go on dealing with some of Obama’s failed policy decisions. From an economic stand-point, if Obama does not figure out the "arithmetic" of some new plan to save the middle class, than the economy will remain in this painful, stagnant period. The article brings up the point that he should have at least stuck to his original plan on dealing with the housing and mortgage crisis, and not wavered as much as he did. In another words, he should have gone all in, instead of just betting the minimum. His policy on raising the taxes on only the wealthy, and not on the other 95% of America, seems great on paper, but in reality is going to make it that much more difficult to lower the deficit. The issues involving Medicare have still not been met, and need to be addressed and solved by the President, because with the raise in life expectancy over the past 50 years, the program has been hemorrhaging tax payer’s money. That all said, I honestly believe that our country is better off economically than four years ago, and I hope that under another four years of the Obama’s presidency, we as a nation, including politicians, can come together to tackle the issues that were missed or not fully-addressed by President Obama’s first term in office.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist compares Obama’s helpful and harmful policies toward the economy since he was inaugurated in 2008. The article offers a fair and unbiased point of view, giving credit where it is due, as well as offering criticism when needed. I agree with The Economist’s stance on Obama’s presidency and dealings with our struggling economy because his policies have helped, it is just that some of them may have been too ambitious. For starters, he had to push legislation through a Republican stronghold in the House of Representatives. And yet, he still kept many banks afloat during the recession with aid from the results of his “stress tests.” Also, he bailed out Chrysler and GM, which saved millions of jobs, and certainly did not hurt the economy. However, the article does mention that Obama did have some failings when it came to green energy, which has struggled due to cheap labor in China, natural gas, and electric cars not selling. All in all, I am in agreement that Obama has made our economy better and took the first steps in recovering the country. Hopefully, if he gets reelected, he can further improve our economy.
ReplyDeleteThe article published on The Economist website begins by pointing out that President Obama took the oath of office when the economy was in an absolutely horrific state, and for that I do commend him. Obama's decision to bail out GM and Chrysler were essential to restart our economy and save millions of jobs. I agree with the article's perspective that Mr.President was impressive in handling the country during the recession, but I also agree that many of his plans were unsuccessful. Nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that one man can only do so much in a certain amount of time given to him. Time is still needed for the economy to get back in balance and for new jobs to arise. Hopefully in this election America will realize that it takes more than just voting a president in to office whose views you agree with. We must also vote in people who will support him and his plans to move the country forward.
ReplyDelete...Foward2012.
The article is talking about Obama's efforts to help the economy. One thing that i was really pleased to know is that he bailed out GM and Chrysler which saved many jobs. It also talked about how Obama dealt with the recession and that he did a very good job. It was not all great for Obama though because some of his plans did backfire. All in all i agree with most of the points the article made. I think president Obama should get re-elected because Bill Clinton said you can not change the economy in only 4 years.
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Economist, President Obama's actions over the course of his first term involved both positive and negative moves with regards to fiscal policies and the economic climate. One of President Obama's strongest moves was saving two of the auto industry's biggest players - Chrysler and General Motors. However, the article goes on to state that he has indeed made not-so great choices as well. His stimulus package, designed to bring us out of our recession, failed to do so and only yielded a GDP growth of 2.2% over the course of three years. However, even the bad things may not be entirely the fault of the President. The Economist frequently points out that President Obama has had to deal with an economic environment in which it seems that the cards are always stacked against him, a sentiment which I completely agree with. The attacks made against President Obama from the right are based on his inability to execute all of the plans and promises that he had made four years ago, and that he is not fit for a second term because he is unable to do as he promised. However, the right has to realize that he has done the best with what he was given. Mitt Romney recently stated that it would take 8-10 years to make the changes that he so desires, so why is there so much heat on Obama for not enacting his changes in four? In any case, I agree with The Economist's point of view that, although President Obama has performed poorly in some areas, for the most part he did well with what the opportunities that he was given.
ReplyDeleteThe Economists speaks about Obama's presidency as positive and negative. They mention his handling of the recession and crisis were impressive but unfortunately, his reshaping of the economy misfired. Although, the article mentions how there was a risk of investor confidence vanishing before Obama came into office. The motor companies benefited from Obama's policies however, the house market did not. I agree with the Economist because I realize the house market is horrible however, the automobile industry has benefited. I also agree with the fact that Obama's presidency has been both negative and positive for the economy in general.
ReplyDeleteThe website states that President Obama has made both positive and negative decisions during his first term and isn't biased or one-sided. One of the positive moves made was that of basically saving the two car dealerships. Alongside that, the article states that he has also made less than satisfactory choices, but it may not be entirely the fault of Obama. The article constantly points out that the President has been making decisions and the results have almost always been against him. All of the people that have said snide things regarding the President have been based on his lack of pulling through with his promised plans, although he is trying his best. Overall, the President was simply trying to complete a hard job in an economically hard time. The odds were not for him.
ReplyDeleteThe article explicitly states that President Obama handled the economic crises and recession, which he was ceded upon entering office, impressively; however, his efforts to reshape the economy had often misfired. I do agree with both points but I would like to add that the policies that might have misfired, such as the green energy policy in the pursuit to cut down spending on gas domestically and provide innovations in technology, was looking not at the short term effects but the long terms albeit they failed. Basic Macroeconomic analysis of Possibility Production Charts dictates that advances in technology serves as a catalyst for national growth. The failure of the President’s policies may open the door for newer and more effective policies to reshape the government. On handling the crisis and recession, I commend the President because he was dealt one of the poorest (performance wise) economies and crises ever to a president and managed to revive the auto industry, produce more jobs, and improve the education system and bring us to a point where we are slowly moving back toward an economy where the deficit is being reduced and employment is increasing, might I add in only one term. However, according to Bill Clinton, “no President has ever been given an economy that was in the midst of a recession, and turned it around in just 4 years.” The expectations of individuals, namely Republicans, are absurd and unrealistic. In summation, I agree with The Economist’s article, yet the latter critique on Obama’s domestic policy, concerning the economy and industrious pursuits, should be further assessed and given another four years to become complete because the plans and long terms goals of the Obama Policy may bring us back to the economic stability and expansion that we witnessed in the late 1990s under President Clinton.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist discusses Obama's presidency as containing both highs and lows, represented at a middle ground, which I find to be perfect for the average person. Based on what I've read, I would say that I completely agree with what was written about President Obama. Although many feel that what President Obama has presented us with has not been up to par, the economy has been improving, regardless of opinion. Obama did save thousands of jobs when he saved Chrysler and GM, showing only a portion of what he's done. Also, the article states that he allocated some $90 billion to green projects, including $8 billion for high-speed rail, much of which has been wasted. It could've been used for more important things previously promised. Although that particularly was a great try and had an even greater message, it wasn't what was most important. Truly, the economy has grown over the President's term, regardless of the nation's mere opinions. In the future term, there might be a greater gain. As for Obama, I believe he did just OK with the problems he was given.
ReplyDeleteFaced with the recession when he took office, President Obama has no doubt tried his best to restore and reshape the economy. With his significant amounts of bailout packages, he helped the auto industry, the banks and has helped create more jobs. Of course, a President cannot give out everything he promised his country as a candidate. Given the state the economy was in when he took office in 2008, I think its excusable that he was not able to accomplish everything he set out to do. People need to keep in mind not everything can be fixed in four years, however, in those short four years, our country has come a long way towards bringing back the economy to its original state. A president cannot carry out everything he promised since all final decisions have to go through a long process, and most of the time ends up butchered in the end. Although he had good intentions, Obama had set his expectations a little too high concerning the economy. Had he been a bit more practical, people would not have been so critical.
ReplyDeleteThe Economist talks about Obama's presidency as fairly average/in the middle. He had both highs and lows, highs including the fact that despite peoples beliefs the economy has in fact improved since he took office. Also his bailout of GM and Chrystler saved thousands of jobs and the necessary big name American automobile manufacturer. Lows include the attempt to use money for green energy and a high-speed rail which ended up being a "sinkhole for taxpayer money". With factors such as the fact that he entered office when the economy had just started taking hits such as AIG needing to be bailed out, I would have to say that I believe he did a pretty good job. With his fast crisis response and stimulus, he ended up in a pretty good place. Having the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression is no easy fix, but he tried his best, putting out plans and ideas. His influence being compared to that of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and Ronald Reagan in 1981.
ReplyDeleteJacob Hochman
DeleteThe economist states that although Obama was successful in his handling of the economic crisis, his efforts to reshape our economy have not succeeded and have often misfired. When President Obama took office, he was presented with many problems and issues within the market such as the collapse of the Lehman Brothers. If matters weren't bad enough for the president, in the final quarter of 2008, the GDP shrank at an annualised rate of 9%, making it the worst in nearly 50 years. President Obama helped with the rescue of GM and Chrysler which created and saved millions of jobs, but failed in his attempts to fix the housing market. Obama has made it clear from the moment he began campaigning for presidency that he wanted to remake the American Economy. I agree with the economists stance on Obama because Obama has helped our economy improve from its previous state and has helped our nation and economy recover, yet we still have a long way to go.
ReplyDelete