Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Now that Obama has been President for two and a half years, it might be wise for him to stop blaming all economic problems on the president.

 

[ericttspikes]

Despite Debt-Crisis Resolution, Wall Street Plummets Amid Economic FearsThe U.S. debt surpassed 100 percent of gross domestic product after the government's debt ceiling was lifted, Treasury figures showed Wednesday, according to AFP. The debt, which had been in somewhat of a holding pattern over the past several weeks, rose $238 billion after President Obama signed the debt-ceiling deal into law Tuesday to avoid the country's first-ever default. The package is designed to carve $2.4 trillion from the deficit over the next decade. But in the near term, it granted Washington an increase in its borrowing authority worth the same amountThe last time the debt topped the size of its annual economy was in 1947 during World War II, according to AFP. But the deficit at the time was driven by war spending -- a degree of spending that ebbed once the war ended. The nation's current deficits were exacerbated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but are also driven in large part by entitlement programs that will not shrink without fundamental changes to their structure -- officials point as well to lost revenue from the recession, tax breaks and increased domestic spending as contributors to the current deficit hole.

Best president eber, obama...

LOL, the guy is implementing your plan. No stimulus, firing fed workers, giving cuts to the uber wealthy. I called it months ago that you clowns would cry about jobs after Obama caved to your demands. Right on cue.

 

[jamny]

Now that Obama has been President for two and a half years, it might be wise for him to stop blaming all economic problems on the president.

He's not. He's blaming it on tsunamis and foreign uprisings too.

 

[ericttspikes]

Can someone post a chart of the DOW from the week Obama took office to the week the Republicans and Tea Partiers celebrated their big "victory"?

This was what the market looked like the day Obama took office. LINK

Thanks. So it went from under 8000 when he was in office, to over 12,500, then fell in ten of the last eleven days. It was over 12000 last week, but after the great victory by the tea party and republicans that was critical to economic recovery, we are now under 11,400, with the market having lost 10 percent of its value in two weeks. Way to go, righties. It took you a little while, but you managed to pick right back up where Bush left off. Those of you who have been so vocal in criticizing Obama for low growth numbers the last few months should be sure to think about how much better slow growth is than the disaster you've created for us.

Couldn't have had anything to do with QE2 (which was artificially propping up the market) expiring could it? Nah!

So now we get to see what it should be like, right? I mean, why complain about it. This is the scenario you guys want, just go with it. Burn it down. Reset. Why try for a soft landing, just go for the thud and pick up from there. Scary ####, but clearly the agenda that the small, vocal, extreme righties in Congress have positioned us for and what their supporters have been littering this board with for several months. The funniest thing about Obama is the right just hates him. Hates him when he spends to create stability to allow for growth to take a foot hold and then they hate him when he caves and implements their plan of cuts and no taxes. It's also rich to hear anti-government people complain about the President at all. WTF can he do in the world you want? It's up to the free market to hire and fix things, right? Maybe the fairy tale of the free market doesn't really work after all.

 

[Slapdash]

Another 40k government jobs lost. Thanks Obama!

 

[rolyaTy]

Stimulus spending hasn't worked so far. I suppose your answer is that it wasn't enough. Here's a hint for you: as long as the business world and the investment community is governed by fear rather than greed, the economy isn't going to recover. As long as Obama is President, that community lives in fear.

Your narrative doesn't reflect reality. Business doesn't care about Obama, it cares about demand for its products. The stimulus was not large enough to spur the kind of demand businesses needed to start hiring again for sustained periods of time (short term). It seems that the market has reacted VERY poorly to the "tea party" solution for our deficit problems, and most people with reasonable economic views see this decision as taking a baseball bat to the economy's already weakened knees, just as it's trying to stand up.It's absolutely insane that conservatives are still championing wrongheaded solutions. Conservative-backed tax cuts were issued without spending cuts to pay for them, increasing the deficit by trillions over the decade. Conservative-backed wars were created without proper methods appropriated to pay for them, or include them in budgets. Not to mention the drug plan or stimulus from Bush...adding about 5 trilion to the deficit, all conservative solutions to perceived problems. Enter tea party activists, who take crazy and square it, and their solution to the perceived deficit problem is to starve our economy through spending cuts and being unwavering in their opposition to balancing it with revenue increases. They're also adamantly opposed to additional spending to get us out of this problem.It's like if you look back over the past decade of conservative solution to problems, you see failure after failure, and they try to peg these failures on Obama and democrats (deficit responsibility, economic troubles), and then stand ridiculously firm and insist on their solutions to the problems they caused. It's ridiculous.Our deficit solution was a piss-poor solution, and the markets are reacting. The stimulus wasn't large enough, and we see that the economy is still stuttering. The global economy sucks, more problems are coming down the line, we have a stagnating and/or receding economy, and the far right are doing everything in their power to not steer us away from the tree we're aimed at.

 

[jon_mx]

The idea that you can effectively grow the economy by temporarily increasing demand through government handouts (stimulus) is absurd. Companies are smart, they know the demand is temporary. They are not going to hire people based on temporary demand.

The only stimulus that will produce jobs in this economy is if you directly subsidize businesses to create new jobs. Non-targeted tax cuts or putting money in the pocket of consumers has proven ineffective. The stimulus and tax cuts failed not because they were too small (they were plenty big), they failed because they were not specifically designed to create jobs.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The idea that you can effectively grow the economy by temporarily increasing demand through government handouts (stimulus) is absurd. Companies are smart, they know the demand is temporary. They are not going to hire people based on temporary demand. The only stimulus that will produce jobs in this economy is if you directly subsidize businesses to create new jobs. Non-targeted tax cuts or putting money in the pocket of consumers has proven ineffective. The stimulus and tax cuts failed not because they were too small (they were plenty big), they failed because they were not specifically designed to create jobs.

WWII was temporary too. Did that help the economy?

 

[jon_mx]

Interesting mix of news stories today:

Obama tells Congress, "No FAA? No Vacation"

Obama has huge Bash with Jay-Z. Tom Hanks, Stevie Wonder, and more....

 

[rolyaTy]

The idea that you can effectively grow the economy by temporarily increasing demand through government handouts (stimulus) is absurd. Companies are smart, they know the demand is temporary. They are not going to hire people based on temporary demand. The only stimulus that will produce jobs in this economy is if you directly subsidize businesses to create new jobs. Non-targeted tax cuts or putting money in the pocket of consumers has proven ineffective. The stimulus and tax cuts failed not because they were too small (they were plenty big), they failed because they were not specifically designed to create jobs.

Think of the stimulus like an epinephrine shot when a person is having an allergic reaction. The epinephrine isn't a long term solution, it just snaps them out of the downward spiral towards suffocation to let their normal system kick back in. That's what the stimulus is supposed to do, but what happened was that the amount of drug in the syringe was less than necessary to overcome the contractions in the body, and we're going BACK into distress. What's worse is that as our breathing is becoming labored again, the tea party insists that we don't need epinephrine, and that instead we need to exercise, because exercising is good for our bodies. So person who is having an allergic reaction where their systems are pulling back and slowly suffocating, get up and go out and run, because that's what keeps us healthy! That's what spending cuts in a retracting economy is doing, it's further burdening an already distressed system.Look, we need a large shot into our economy to prevent a bad recession, and to prevent what happened to Japan leading to their lost decade. Whether it's investment in infrastructure, or subsidies to businesses, or other short term stimulative measures, a mix is good, but we need this more than we need to get the deficit down in the short term. We do need a solid long term deficit solution that includes spending cuts and tax increases at the same time, but the problem with these solutions is that the conservative guys in congress don't believe any of it's necessary.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Interesting mix of news stories today:Obama tells Congress, "No FAA? No Vacation"Obama has huge Bash with Jay-Z. Tom Hanks, Stevie Wonder, and more....

If you think a birthday party is the same as a vacation, you've either been having amazing birthday parties or terrible vacations.

 

[rolyaTy]

Interesting mix of news stories today:Obama tells Congress, "No FAA? No Vacation"Obama has huge Bash with Jay-Z. Tom Hanks, Stevie Wonder, and more....

If you think a birthday party is the same as a vacation, you've either been having amazing birthday parties or terrible vacations.

Also, it fails to realize who has to solve the problem and who just has to sign the solution.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

WWII was temporary too. Did that help the economy?

No.

 

[bostonfred]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

 

[jon_mx]

I understand exactly what the stimulus was suppose to do, and it was in fact more than enough to do that and it did all that it could do. The problem is we have too many problems in the economy that no amount of stimulus can fix. Stimulus is not going to fix the housing market, people are going to continue to default, banks will continue to be in crappy financial situations, fear will stay in the markets, banks will be afraid to loan, busnesses will be afaraid to hire. Throwing another trillion at that is not going to do squat until the fundamental problems are addressed.

 

[jamny]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

 

[rolyaTy]

I understand exactly what the stimulus was suppose to do, and it was in fact more than enough to do that and it did all that it could do.

Not correct.

 

[bostonfred]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

What action did they take to help the economy recover? We just got a jobs report saying the economy added 120k jobs. That might not be a fast recovery, but it's a recovery. Unfortunately, this little debt fiasco just cut the legs out from under it. I would be interested in hearing how you think that an economic recovery in the next 12 months would have anything whatsoever to do with a ten year debt reduction strategy including immediate job cuts.

 

[jon_mx]

I understand exactly what the stimulus was suppose to do, and it was in fact more than enough to do that and it did all that it could do.

Not correct.

Was too.

 

[jamny]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

What action did they take to help the economy recover? We just got a jobs report saying the economy added 120k jobs. That might not be a fast recovery, but it's a recovery. Unfortunately, this little debt fiasco just cut the legs out from under it. I would be interested in hearing how you think that an economic recovery in the next 12 months would have anything whatsoever to do with a ten year debt reduction strategy including immediate job cuts.

You're the one blaming them for the current situation. So if they are in fact to blame, it would only make sense to give credit if a turnaround occurs. I personally haven't seen much to give Republicans much credit or fault at this time. The debt ceiling bill was minor. This is Obama's economy.

 

[Road Warriors]

The idea that you can effectively grow the economy by temporarily increasing demand through government handouts (stimulus) is absurd. Companies are smart, they know the demand is temporary. They are not going to hire people based on temporary demand. The only stimulus that will produce jobs in this economy is if you directly subsidize businesses to create new jobs. Non-targeted tax cuts or putting money in the pocket of consumers has proven ineffective. The stimulus and tax cuts failed not because they were too small (they were plenty big), they failed because they were not specifically designed to create jobs.

WWII was temporary too. Did that help the economy?

Was the government spending in WWII effectively putting consumer dollars directly in the people's hands? Or was it spent on a military industry that produced real goods and required real jobs, which later could be translated beyond the military applications, providing real, long-term growth opportunities for business, which spurred future demand and sustainable jobs and economic growth?Deficit spending isn't the culprit in our current economy. It's what we're choosing to spend those deficit dollars on, and where we've spent them so far doesn't lead to sustainable recovery. Business is too smart to buy what Washington is selling right now. They know that when the handouts stop, so will the artificial demand that it brings. They won't be left holding the bag with new costs when the demand runs dry again, so they'll meet the temporary demand by extracting more productivity out of their current work force, increase profits, and be poised to invest when there is a real, sustainable recovery. Smart for business, not great for the economy.

 

[tommyboy]

its bush's fault. Always will be

 

[bostonfred]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

What action did they take to help the economy recover? We just got a jobs report saying the economy added 120k jobs. That might not be a fast recovery, but it's a recovery. Unfortunately, this little debt fiasco just cut the legs out from under it. I would be interested in hearing how you think that an economic recovery in the next 12 months would have anything whatsoever to do with a ten year debt reduction strategy including immediate job cuts.

You're the one blaming them for the current situation. So if they are in fact to blame, it would only make sense to give credit if a turnaround occurs. I personally haven't seen much to give Republicans much credit or fault at this time. The debt ceiling bill was minor. This is Obama's economy.

Tell me where you disagreeo I blame the people who are celebrating their big victory in the debt standoff for the market dropping 10% in 10 days? Of course. The debt standoff triggered fears which caused people to pull out of investments and we're feeling the shockwaves. We made our debt payments, but people are still very jittery, and real people are losing real money as a direct result. That sucks. Do you feel differently? Can the deficit reduction hurt the economy? Absolutely. Cutting costs means cutting a specific (but as yet unknown) number of jobs. That hurts the recovery. Do you feel differently? Does a ten year deficit reduction plan have much else in the way of a short or medium term impact on the overall economy? Not really. It might prevent us from having our credit lowered, but from the sounds of it, the credit agencies and world market really haven't responded that favorably. So I don't think there's a boost for the economy coming in the timeframe you asked about - one year. Do you feel differently? If you don't disagree with at least one of those statements, then what exactly is your point?

 

[TobiasFunke]

its bush's fault. Always will be

It's kind of weird to roll your eyes at an argument nobody is making here.

 

[jamny]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

What action did they take to help the economy recover? We just got a jobs report saying the economy added 120k jobs. That might not be a fast recovery, but it's a recovery. Unfortunately, this little debt fiasco just cut the legs out from under it. I would be interested in hearing how you think that an economic recovery in the next 12 months would have anything whatsoever to do with a ten year debt reduction strategy including immediate job cuts.

You're the one blaming them for the current situation. So if they are in fact to blame, it would only make sense to give credit if a turnaround occurs. I personally haven't seen much to give Republicans much credit or fault at this time. The debt ceiling bill was minor. This is Obama's economy.

Tell me where you disagreeo I blame the people who are celebrating their big victory in the debt standoff for the market dropping 10% in 10 days? Of course. The debt standoff triggered fears which caused people to pull out of investments and we're feeling the shockwaves. We made our debt payments, but people are still very jittery, and real people are losing real money as a direct result. That sucks. Do you feel differently?

I don't think either side celebrated victory in the debt ceiling debate. The fact that it didn't do enough stroked fears that a downgrade is coming. And the recent issues in Europe also played a part.

Can the deficit reduction hurt the economy? Absolutely. Cutting costs means cutting a specific (but as yet unknown) number of jobs. That hurts the recovery. Do you feel differently?

Cutting the deficit is needed. Cutting costs and raising taxes will both contribute to job losses. It's a sad reality that things need to be done to get the country back on it's feet and unfortunately jobs will be lost. If the job loss contributes to a more efficient government, so be it.

Does a ten year deficit reduction plan have much else in the way of a short or medium term impact on the overall economy? Not really. It might prevent us from having our credit lowered, but from the sounds of it, the credit agencies and world market really haven't responded that favorably. So I don't think there's a boost for the economy coming in the timeframe you asked about - one year. Do you feel differently?

No. There won't be much of a short term effect with $21 billion in cuts for 2012. I agree here.

If you don't disagree with at least one of those statements, then what exactly is your point?

My point is, the Republicans shouldn't be assigned the blame you are giving them for the past 10 days.

 

[bostonfred]

The right wingers got exactly what they wanted - they cut taxes for the fortunate people who are still employed, they crippled the economic recovery before Obama's reelection campaign, and they won't have to do any more messy jobs created or saved calculations for a while. And the best part is that they can keep blaming someone else - now that they're done celebrating and realize that the market lost 10% in a week because of their ineptitude, the Republicans are all blaming the tea party and the democrats, while the tea party blames the republicans and democrats.

So if the economy recovers from now until next summer, you'll be crediting the Republicans right?

What action did they take to help the economy recover? We just got a jobs report saying the economy added 120k jobs. That might not be a fast recovery, but it's a recovery. Unfortunately, this little debt fiasco just cut the legs out from under it. I would be interested in hearing how you think that an economic recovery in the next 12 months would have anything whatsoever to do with a ten year debt reduction strategy including immediate job cuts.

You're the one blaming them for the current situation. So if they are in fact to blame, it would only make sense to give credit if a turnaround occurs. I personally haven't seen much to give Republicans much credit or fault at this time. The debt ceiling bill was minor. This is Obama's economy.

Tell me where you disagreeo I blame the people who are celebrating their big victory in the debt standoff for the market dropping 10% in 10 days? Of course. The debt standoff triggered fears which caused people to pull out of investments and we're feeling the shockwaves. We made our debt payments, but people are still very jittery, and real people are losing real money as a direct result. That sucks. Do you feel differently?

I don't think either side celebrated victory in the debt ceiling debate. The fact that it didn't do enough stroked fears that a downgrade is coming. And the recent issues in Europe also played a part.

Can the deficit reduction hurt the economy? Absolutely. Cutting costs means cutting a specific (but as yet unknown) number of jobs. That hurts the recovery. Do you feel differently?

Cutting the deficit is needed. Cutting costs and raising taxes will both contribute to job losses. It's a sad reality that things need to be done to get the country back on it's feet and unfortunately jobs will be lost. If the job loss contributes to a more efficient government, so be it.

Does a ten year deficit reduction plan have much else in the way of a short or medium term impact on the overall economy? Not really. It might prevent us from having our credit lowered, but from the sounds of it, the credit agencies and world market really haven't responded that favorably. So I don't think there's a boost for the economy coming in the timeframe you asked about - one year. Do you feel differently?

No. There won't be much of a short term effect with $21 billion in cuts for 2012. I agree here.

If you don't disagree with at least one of those statements, then what exactly is your point?

My point is, the Republicans shouldn't be assigned the blame you are giving them for the past 10 days.

OK, so you agree with just about everything I said, but you somehow believe that this drop in the market has nothing to do with the debt standoff? Or that the tea party and republicans weren't the ones pushing the debt standoff?

 

[jamny]

OK, so you agree with just about everything I said, but you somehow believe that this drop in the market has nothing to do with the debt standoff? Or that the tea party and republicans weren't the ones pushing the debt standoff?

I don't think it was the debate that did it, it was the final result that might be partially to blame. They showed, once again, that although they might have been able to come to a bipartisan compromise, the result was weak. I credit the tea party for bringing the fight to begin with. At least there was an attempt and it may have been enough to hold off a downgrade for a while. I think it was better than just passing the debt ceiling increase as usual, with no discussion, which may have immediately drawn a downgrade. Then where would the market be?

 

[tommyboy]

its bush's fault. Always will be

It's kind of weird to roll your eyes at an argument nobody is making here.

Obama used it just the other day:[W]e have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet.

he seems intent on continuing his longstanding policy of blaming bush for all the bad things

 

[TobiasFunke]

its bush's fault. Always will be

It's kind of weird to roll your eyes at an argument nobody is making here.

Obama used it just the other day:[W]e have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet.

he seems intent on continuing his longstanding policy of blaming bush for all the bad things

He never mentions Bush. It's possible to point out that there are challenges without blaming anyone, you know. Seriously, "complaining about complaining about Bush" overtook "complaining about Bush" a long time ago. Just stop with the whining. Occasionally a president who has been in office for 2 1/2 years will mention things both good and bad that took place more than 2 1/2 years ago. It's completely normal and reasonable. Every president- and I'm guessing probably every governor, CEO, McDonald's franchise owner, and janitor- occasionally talks about their job performance in terms of the situation they inherited. Stop whining about it.

 

[bostonfred]

OK, so you agree with just about everything I said, but you somehow believe that this drop in the market has nothing to do with the debt standoff? Or that the tea party and republicans weren't the ones pushing the debt standoff?

I don't think it was the debate that did it, it was the final result that might be partially to blame. They showed, once again, that although they might have been able to come to a bipartisan compromise, the result was weak. I credit the tea party for bringing the fight to begin with. At least there was an attempt and it may have been enough to hold off a downgrade for a while. I think it was better than just passing the debt ceiling increase as usual, with no discussion, which may have immediately drawn a downgrade. Then where would the market be?

There was no indication that a downgrade was imminent before the standoff. There was an indication that we might get a negative comment on our triple A credit rating, but there is no reason to think that increasing the ceiling would have "immediately drawn a downgrade. None. I give credit to the tea party for bringing the issue up, too. The problem is WHEN they brought it up. You don't pay down debt when you're not making money and you're struggling to pay your bills. The only reason this became such an urgent issue is because they got their guys elected on an OMG We Need To Stop Obama campaign, and used the "trillion dollar stimulus" boogeyman to get votes. It was a manufactured sense of urgency that forced poorly timed action which is hurting the economy right now. That's why the market's going ape.

 

[rolyaTy]

its bush's fault. Always will be

Nothing is Bush's fault. His policies and legacy have nothing to do with our current debt situation or our domestic or international commitments/problems. People who imply that Bush's decisions/policies affect anything outside of the 8 years he was in office are mental. Bush's time in office began when he was sworn in the first time, and his impact on our country ended at the conclusion of his second term. Period.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

OK, so you agree with just about everything I said, but you somehow believe that this drop in the market has nothing to do with the debt standoff? Or that the tea party and republicans weren't the ones pushing the debt standoff?

I don't think it was the debate that did it, it was the final result that might be partially to blame. They showed, once again, that although they might have been able to come to a bipartisan compromise, the result was weak. I credit the tea party for bringing the fight to begin with. At least there was an attempt and it may have been enough to hold off a downgrade for a while. I think it was better than just passing the debt ceiling increase as usual, with no discussion, which may have immediately drawn a downgrade. Then where would the market be?

There was no indication that a downgrade was imminent before the standoff. There was an indication that we might get a negative comment on our triple A credit rating, but there is no reason to think that increasing the ceiling would have "immediately drawn a downgrade. None. I give credit to the tea party for bringing the issue up, too. The problem is WHEN they brought it up. You don't pay down debt when you're not making money and you're struggling to pay your bills. The only reason this became such an urgent issue is because they got their guys elected on an OMG We Need To Stop Obama campaign, and used the "trillion dollar stimulus" boogeyman to get votes. It was a manufactured sense of urgency that forced poorly timed action which is hurting the economy right now. That's why the market's going ape.

That's a damn good post.

 

[jon_mx]

I suppose if we want to blame the Tea Party for their campaign, should we blame Obama for starting this whole economic crisis for his campaign in 2008? Or is it only the tea party which has this remarkable power?

 

[rolyaTy]

I suppose if we want to blame the Tea Party for their campaign, should we blame Obama for starting this whole economic crisis for his campaign in 2008? Or is it only the tea party which has this remarkable power?

This makes negative sense, as in, I'm dumber for having read this.

 

[jamny]

OK, so you agree with just about everything I said, but you somehow believe that this drop in the market has nothing to do with the debt standoff? Or that the tea party and republicans weren't the ones pushing the debt standoff?

I don't think it was the debate that did it, it was the final result that might be partially to blame. They showed, once again, that although they might have been able to come to a bipartisan compromise, the result was weak. I credit the tea party for bringing the fight to begin with. At least there was an attempt and it may have been enough to hold off a downgrade for a while. I think it was better than just passing the debt ceiling increase as usual, with no discussion, which may have immediately drawn a downgrade. Then where would the market be?

There was no indication that a downgrade was imminent before the standoff. There was an indication that we might get a negative comment on our triple A credit rating, but there is no reason to think that increasing the ceiling would have "immediately drawn a downgrade. None. I give credit to the tea party for bringing the issue up, too. The problem is WHEN they brought it up. You don't pay down debt when you're not making money and you're struggling to pay your bills. The only reason this became such an urgent issue is because they got their guys elected on an OMG We Need To Stop Obama campaign, and used the "trillion dollar stimulus" boogeyman to get votes. It was a manufactured sense of urgency that forced poorly timed action which is hurting the economy right now. That's why the market's going ape.

I said "may have" not "would have" Of course, we'll never know, will we.There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills. You keep thinking this is strictly about Obama. There's no way to tell yet but I hope you are wrong in this. I think the tea party will be very tough on Romney if he does get elected in 2012.

 

[Statorama]

Stop whining about it.

It's not whining, it's just stating a fact. Obama constantly uses "the mess he inherited" as a crutch for the predictable results of his economic illiteracy.

 

[Statorama]

The markets are freaking out because Obama was given another blank check without any real cuts into the current debt.

The financial professionals don't have to be nostradamus to predict the potential dangers involved with allowing Obama to run up the debt even more than he already has.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The markets are freaking out because Obama was given another blank check without any real cuts into the current debt.The financial professionals don't have to be nostradamus to predict the potential dangers involved with allowing Obama to run up the debt even more than he already has.

Of all the funny conservative shtick I've enjoyed in this thread over the years, suddenly blaming Obama for the state of the markets while ignoring the fact that the Dow is up like 37% during his presidency might be my favorite.In response to your thread title: it seems that the opinion of financial professionals in the job that President Obama is doing so far is that he's freaking incredible.

 

[tommyboy]

its bush's fault. Always will be

It's kind of weird to roll your eyes at an argument nobody is making here.

Obama used it just the other day:[W]e have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet.

he seems intent on continuing his longstanding policy of blaming bush for all the bad things

He never mentions Bush. It's possible to point out that there are challenges without blaming anyone, you know. Seriously, "complaining about complaining about Bush" overtook "complaining about Bush" a long time ago. Just stop with the whining. Occasionally a president who has been in office for 2 1/2 years will mention things both good and bad that took place more than 2 1/2 years ago. It's completely normal and reasonable. Every president- and I'm guessing probably every governor, CEO, McDonald's franchise owner, and janitor- occasionally talks about their job performance in terms of the situation they inherited. Stop whining about it.

just 2 wks ago in an address to the nation he said:
For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

guy needs a new schtick

 

[TobiasFunke]

its bush's fault. Always will be

It's kind of weird to roll your eyes at an argument nobody is making here.

Obama used it just the other day:[W]e have made some incredible strides together. Yes, we have. But the thing that we all ought to remember is that as much as good as we have done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet.

he seems intent on continuing his longstanding policy of blaming bush for all the bad things

He never mentions Bush. It's possible to point out that there are challenges without blaming anyone, you know. Seriously, "complaining about complaining about Bush" overtook "complaining about Bush" a long time ago. Just stop with the whining. Occasionally a president who has been in office for 2 1/2 years will mention things both good and bad that took place more than 2 1/2 years ago. It's completely normal and reasonable. Every president- and I'm guessing probably every governor, CEO, McDonald's franchise owner, and janitor- occasionally talks about their job performance in terms of the situation they inherited. Stop whining about it.

just 2 wks ago in an address to the nation he said:
For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

guy needs a new schtick

Yeah, I hate it when presidents say things that are true.You act like that's all he ever says. Like he said that two weeks ago and then didn't speak another word in the interim. You need a new shtick.

 

[Statorama]

The failure of Obamanomics

Of course, there are lots of reasons why the stock market fell more than 500 points yesterday -- the largest one-day rout since the dark days of the 2008 financial crisis -- global economic unrest being chief among them.

But in the past, when European markets swooned, the US stock market wasn't a bad place to put some money. No longer.

OK, a stronger-than-expected jobs report could send the Dow flying in the other direction today. But talk to investors and you come away with the distinct impression that they've figured out the truth about President Obama's economic policy -- there's no there there.

Yes, they brushed off talk about a US default, and rushed so hard into bonds that the return on Treasury bills maturing in less than a year fell into negative territory. But bond prices mainly reflect things like inflation (which is low because of the lackluster economy), and the United States is the world's lone safe haven. (Even if our bonds are downgraded, they're a safer bet than anywhere else.)

Stocks, on the other hand, reflect investor sentiment about the broader US economy -- and how it'll fare in the future. It looks like last week's rotten GDP-growth numbers, plus dismal manufacturing-growth news, has investors betting that the future doesn't look bright.

"I wouldn't rush to go out and buy stocks, even cheap ones with the market down 500 points, because with the job market and economy where it is, I see significant problems," trader Doreen Mogavero told me yesterday on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

The markets reached their financial-crisis low in March 2009, when the Dow fell to 6,600, then recovered over the next two years on a bet by investors that Obamanomics might actually work.

But now they've decided it isn't working -- that's how they read these numbers. And the Fed's not going to help, either -- printing money hasn't worked so far, nor have zero interest rates. And it doesn't have any other tools left.

Republicans, meanwhile, can't push through their own pro-growth agenda, because the president still has the power to stop what he sees as providing aid and comfort to the enemy -- namely "millionaires and billionaires."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently told me there's not much he and his colleagues can do other than make the case for a business-friendly environment, and push to limit the Obama regulations that are forcing firms to hire overseas instead of here at home.

But it seems next to impossible to reverse the debilitating effects of the granddaddy of regulation, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, which makes it more difficult for banks to lend to small businesses and forces Wall Street firms to get out of businesses that had little to do with the housing sins that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

In other words, our economy can be summed up in two words: A Mess -- and, in my experience, investors generally hate buying into a mess.

 

[bostonfred]

I suppose if we want to blame the Tea Party for their campaign, should we blame Obama for starting this whole economic crisis for his campaign in 2008? Or is it only the tea party which has this remarkable power?

You can and do blame Obama for running on healthcare reform. I think it's a very reasonable criticism of the health care plan to say, fine, we want national health care, but can we afford it right now? I happen to think the answer is yes, because the money is already being spent through other channels, but the question is still valid. Some of your smarter compatriots on the right have argued that Obama won on "I'm not Bush", and treated that as a mandate for healthcare. So please don't act all butt hurt when I question the tea party for running on "cut the deficit" when we're stuck in an economic quagmire. It was a stupid time to try to cut spending. A whole generation of people who never used the word keynesian suddenly started talking about how keynesian economics had failed, and they sound about as educated on the topic as you do. I'll give you a simple point - when the government fires a bunch of people to save money, those people are going to collect unemployment, spend less, not get taxed, and the economy will be worse off for it in the short term. There is no question that this is making the economy worse right now. If you want to debate economic theory and get into whether the longer term benefits are worth risking a double dip/head and shoulders, which we may be seeing right now in the DOW, then find someone smarter than you who wrote something more interesting than you're capable of and copy/paste it over here, because I happen to find that a very important question that should have been asked before we got into the political drama that destroyed more than 10% of the wealth of the entire stock market in a matter of days. I won't engage you further if all you're going to do it post drivel like "is it only the tea party that has this remarkable power". I'm too busy figuring out how to protect my life savings from the people you continue to support.

 

[greenroom]

The failure of Obamanomics

Of course, there are lots of reasons why the stock market fell more than 500 points yesterday -- the largest one-day rout since the dark days of the 2008 financial crisis -- global economic unrest being chief among them.

But in the past, when European markets swooned, the US stock market wasn't a bad place to put some money. No longer.

OK, a stronger-than-expected jobs report could send the Dow flying in the other direction today. But talk to investors and you come away with the distinct impression that they've figured out the truth about President Obama's economic policy -- there's no there there.

Yes, they brushed off talk about a US default, and rushed so hard into bonds that the return on Treasury bills maturing in less than a year fell into negative territory. But bond prices mainly reflect things like inflation (which is low because of the lackluster economy), and the United States is the world's lone safe haven. (Even if our bonds are downgraded, they're a safer bet than anywhere else.)

Stocks, on the other hand, reflect investor sentiment about the broader US economy -- and how it'll fare in the future. It looks like last week's rotten GDP-growth numbers, plus dismal manufacturing-growth news, has investors betting that the future doesn't look bright.

"I wouldn't rush to go out and buy stocks, even cheap ones with the market down 500 points, because with the job market and economy where it is, I see significant problems," trader Doreen Mogavero told me yesterday on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

The markets reached their financial-crisis low in March 2009, when the Dow fell to 6,600, then recovered over the next two years on a bet by investors that Obamanomics might actually work.

But now they've decided it isn't working -- that's how they read these numbers. And the Fed's not going to help, either -- printing money hasn't worked so far, nor have zero interest rates. And it doesn't have any other tools left.

Republicans, meanwhile, can't push through their own pro-growth agenda, because the president still has the power to stop what he sees as providing aid and comfort to the enemy -- namely "millionaires and billionaires."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently told me there's not much he and his colleagues can do other than make the case for a business-friendly environment, and push to limit the Obama regulations that are forcing firms to hire overseas instead of here at home.

But it seems next to impossible to reverse the debilitating effects of the granddaddy of regulation, the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law, which makes it more difficult for banks to lend to small businesses and forces Wall Street firms to get out of businesses that had little to do with the housing sins that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

In other words, our economy can be summed up in two words: A Mess -- and, in my experience, investors generally hate buying into a mess.

BS to the bolded Firms were already leaving prior to Obama taking office. I had several friends lose jobs when Bush was in office (not blaming him, just stating facts) and for a "leader" to give up is unacceptable and he should be voted out in the next election.

 

[jon_mx]

I suppose if we want to blame the Tea Party for their campaign, should we blame Obama for starting this whole economic crisis for his campaign in 2008? Or is it only the tea party which has this remarkable power?

You can and do blame Obama for running on healthcare reform. I think it's a very reasonable criticism of the health care plan to say, fine, we want national health care, but can we afford it right now? I happen to think the answer is yes, because the money is already being spent through other channels, but the question is still valid. Some of your smarter compatriots on the right have argued that Obama won on "I'm not Bush", and treated that as a mandate for healthcare. So please don't act all butt hurt when I question the tea party for running on "cut the deficit" when we're stuck in an economic quagmire. It was a stupid time to try to cut spending. A whole generation of people who never used the word keynesian suddenly started talking about how keynesian economics had failed, and they sound about as educated on the topic as you do. I'll give you a simple point - when the government fires a bunch of people to save money, those people are going to collect unemployment, spend less, not get taxed, and the economy will be worse off for it in the short term. There is no question that this is making the economy worse right now.

If you want to debate economic theory and get into whether the longer term benefits are worth risking a double dip/head and shoulders, which we may be seeing right now in the DOW, then find someone smarter than you who wrote something more interesting than you're capable of and copy/paste it over here, because I happen to find that a very important question that should have been asked before we got into the political drama that destroyed more than 10% of the wealth of the entire stock market in a matter of days. I won't engage you further if all you're going to do it post drivel like "is it only the tea party that has this remarkable power". I'm too busy figuring out how to protect my life savings from the people you continue to support.

Link to the first bolded?Link to the second bolded. I am not butt hurt, in fact I am laughing at such a stupid argument.

 

[bostonfred]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events. And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest. What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

 

[jamny]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events. And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest. What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

A complete overreaction. All that is happening is turning a ship around. These were minor steps and if you think the debt limit debate was extreme, you are in for a rude awakening. My wife and I don't wait to time our payments for when rates are right, we do it as soon as possible. We paid our 30 year mortgage in 12 years. We paid off our Explorer in a couple of years. We use a line of credit for home repairs and pay it off asap. When we owe, we scrimp until it is paid off. We are close to buying a 3 family home as a rental property. Believe me, we will be bare bones, pasta and pizza until most of it is paid off. We don't buy anything that we won't be able to pay off quickly and even then we live a low-key life. I don't buy every gadget on the market, my wife only goes shopping when she needs to. Blame Obama, blame Bush, who cares. This me attitude has to change. I'm not talking about you, but society in general.

 

[bostonfred]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events. And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest. What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

A complete overreaction. All that is happening is turning a ship around. These were minor steps and if you think the debt limit debate was extreme, you are in for a rude awakening. My wife and I don't wait to time our payments for when rates are right, we do it as soon as possible. We paid our 30 year mortgage in 12 years. We paid off our Explorer in a couple of years. We use a line of credit for home repairs and pay it off asap. When we owe, we scrimp until it is paid off. We are close to buying a 3 family home as a rental property. Believe me, we will be bare bones, pasta and pizza until most of it is paid off. We don't buy anything that we won't be able to pay off quickly and even then we live a low-key life. I don't buy every gadget on the market, my wife only goes shopping when she needs to. Blame Obama, blame Bush, who cares. This me attitude has to change. I'm not talking about you, but society in general.

It really isn't an overreaction. It's a response to the "that's now how your run your finances at home" arguments, intended to show how you use leverage to invest when things are down. The rest of your response is a good one though. You cut bad spending, pay your bills, and you are investing in a rental property to try to increase revenue. That's how you run a successful family/business/government. I agree with that, and if the government were cutting bad spending in favor of good spending and increasing revenues like you are, then I'd be all for it.

 

[jamny]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do. But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events. And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest. What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

A complete overreaction. All that is happening is turning a ship around. These were minor steps and if you think the debt limit debate was extreme, you are in for a rude awakening. My wife and I don't wait to time our payments for when rates are right, we do it as soon as possible. We paid our 30 year mortgage in 12 years. We paid off our Explorer in a couple of years. We use a line of credit for home repairs and pay it off asap. When we owe, we scrimp until it is paid off. We are close to buying a 3 family home as a rental property. Believe me, we will be bare bones, pasta and pizza until most of it is paid off. We don't buy anything that we won't be able to pay off quickly and even then we live a low-key life. I don't buy every gadget on the market, my wife only goes shopping when she needs to. Blame Obama, blame Bush, who cares. This me attitude has to change. I'm not talking about you, but society in general.

It really isn't an overreaction. It's a response to the "that's now how your run your finances at home" arguments, intended to show how you use leverage to invest when things are down. The rest of your response is a good one though. You cut bad spending, pay your bills, and you are investing in a rental property to try to increase revenue. That's how you run a successful family/business/government. I agree with that, and if the government were cutting bad spending in favor of good spending and increasing revenues like you are, then I'd be all for it.

start the weekend!

 

[tommyGunZ]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events.

And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest.

What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

A complete overreaction. All that is happening is turning a ship around. These were minor steps and if you think the debt limit debate was extreme, you are in for a rude awakening. My wife and I don't wait to time our payments for when rates are right, we do it as soon as possible. We paid our 30 year mortgage in 12 years. We paid off our Explorer in a couple of years. We use a line of credit for home repairs and pay it off asap. When we owe, we scrimp until it is paid off. We are close to buying a 3 family home as a rental property. Believe me, we will be bare bones, pasta and pizza until most of it is paid off. We don't buy anything that we won't be able to pay off quickly and even then we live a low-key life. I don't buy every gadget on the market, my wife only goes shopping when she needs to. Blame Obama, blame Bush, who cares. This me attitude has to change. I'm not talking about you, but society in general.

I'd be interested in hearing how that decision worked out. Over the course of those 12 years, was your mortgage rate greater than the aggregate market return?ETA: I ask b/c I'm in a similar situation w/re to student loans. I've hedged the past ~2 years by investing ~ 20% of excess earnings in the market and using the remaining 80% to pay off my wife's student loan that was at 6.25%. Had I invested every dollar from '09 - '11 in a NASDAQ spider fund I'd have come out ahead, so from a strictly economic position, I choose unwisely. I am now deciding how to approach my own student loan (5.5%).

 

[jamny]

There's no time like the present to address these issues. You expect them to be elected yet not bring up things that are central to their beliefs? Sorry if the timing doesn't suit you. You may not pay down debt, but you do start cutting your spending when you're struggling to pay your bills.

Really? Did you pay cash up front for your college education? I didn't. I took out student loans. I was fortunate that I could borrow cheap money to do it, and that investment has paid off big time by providing me with a career I'd never have gotten without my college education. If I had set my goals lower, I could have paid off my bills, kept my job bagging groceries, and maybe moved up to cashier if I'd played my cards right. That would have been the fiscally responsible thing to do.

But instead, I invested in my future, like someone who believed that they could do more than just survive. I planned on growing, and I did, using debt when I didn't have money, and paying it down when I started earning. Since then, my income has continued to grow, and I've occasionally borrowed money for large purchases or to cover major life events.

And yes, I pay off my debt, but I do it the way successful companies do, and the way the government should, too. I pay down debt when the interest is more expensive than what I could earn on my money right now. I make an educated decision on what to buy based on how much it would cost, including interest, and sometimes I pay down extra against the principle, if I am flush with cash or if putting my money in savings would earn less than what I'm paying in interest.

What I absolutely do not do is wait until I've lost my job and I'm broke, then start pointing fingers at my old boss, sell my car and my work clothes and my computer to pay down debt, and then try to find a way to get some income again. That would be ridiculous. I don't run my life like that and I don't support it in public policy, either.

A complete overreaction. All that is happening is turning a ship around. These were minor steps and if you think the debt limit debate was extreme, you are in for a rude awakening. My wife and I don't wait to time our payments for when rates are right, we do it as soon as possible. We paid our 30 year mortgage in 12 years. We paid off our Explorer in a couple of years. We use a line of credit for home repairs and pay it off asap. When we owe, we scrimp until it is paid off. We are close to buying a 3 family home as a rental property. Believe me, we will be bare bones, pasta and pizza until most of it is paid off. We don't buy anything that we won't be able to pay off quickly and even then we live a low-key life. I don't buy every gadget on the market, my wife only goes shopping when she needs to. Blame Obama, blame Bush, who cares. This me attitude has to change. I'm not talking about you, but society in general.

I'd be interested in hearing how that decision worked out. Over the course of those 12 years, was your mortgage rate greater than the aggregate market return?

I don't know. We started in '94 at 9.25% and refinanced a few years later at 7something. I'm sure you'll throw stats that show we did the wrong thing somehow but that's not how we think. Same with the 401k that you commented on. We can probably retire now on that money. Yes, it's not the smartest thing to have pulled out and stayed out for this long, but oh well. Peace of mind. We are in really good shape financially and don't want anyone else to ruin it.