- #36
Lapidus
- 344
- 12
russ_watters said:According to Obama himself, his policies when he got elected were intended to limit unemployment to 8% rather than his predicted 9%.
![]()
So there are two possibilities based on this graph and what we now know happened:
1. He badly underestimated how bad the economy was when he got into office.
2. His policies increased, instead of decreased, unemployment.
Which do you think is more likely?
And while we're at it - please provide a reference for your claim that the economy was predicted to be headed for a full-blown depression. You said at least three times in that post that there is plenty of money out there to be invested, a fact which I agree with - companies have been hoarding money. No doubt, you believe this is a serious problem, otherwise you wouldn't have said it several times. So doesn't it make sense to implement policies that would promote investment by private companies, with money that they have sitting in the bank, rather than investment by the government, with borrowed money? Further, is it possible that a high debt and uncertain prospects for correcting the problem have played a part in companies' reluctance to invest?
You constantly demand for every simple and well-known facts reference and present us a chart from innocentbystander?? Which claims to know how the unemployment would have developed if the government would have taken no action??
If there so much money floating around, so much private wealth, but all this money does not know where to go to invest, and at the same time low and middle-income people have increasingly less money available, which means there is very little money for consumption, but the US economy relies so much on consumption, what is the conclusion?
Of course: tax the high-income people a bit more, do not increase the burden on low and middle income people too drastic.
If consumer confidence is back, investment will pick up again.
Last edited: