Question:
Now that the job market is turning around and shows Obamas economic policies are working,will you vote for him?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Now that the job market is turning around and shows Obamas economic policies are working,will you vote for him?
25 answers:
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:26:44 UTC
Its not real economic growth, its what every administration does, they print and borrow so much money that its briefly stimulates the economy, but the real problem is how will that affect the long term, and that is not good, if you think we can be $15 trillion dollars in debt and not have any consequences then you are nuts
expertgal
2012-01-10 07:26:35 UTC
Nope, no way. I'd vote for Mickey Mouse before I'd vote for

Hussein Obama. We need to throw out of office him, Reid,

and Pelosi.....all anti-America. Reid made the statement he

would not work with any elected Republican president. Is

this how we get things done in D.C.? Throw the bums out.
JSGeare
2012-01-10 07:44:26 UTC
The improvement in the economy may well be occurring in spite of, not because of, Obama's policies. Some have argued, and have introduced data to show, that the recovery may have been faster had Obama done nothing at all. This horrible truth is that Presidential and governmental activity cannot, by itself, change economic conditions. If it could, then Obama and company could simply say, "Let there be jobs!" and jobs would miraculously appear.



Furthermore, as economists will tell you, the policies adopted by one administration may not really become influential until some time in the NEXT administration - it takes that long for the changes to become embedded in the economic structure. Some will argue that the improved economy now is not the result of anything that Obama has done, but rather reflects the policies of the Bush administration.



In general, all the Obama administration has done is create legislation which results in higher costs, either directly, or because of the administrative cost of implementing the new rules. The Health Care Reform Act is a classic example.



There are exceptions, of course. A very positive act, and one which held broad support on both sides of the aisle, was the GM bail-out. Costly as it was, it nonetheless preserved jobs because it preserved work to be done. Today, GM is nearly, once again, the largest car builder in the world. The pay back has been enormous, and since the government is now GM's largest single share holder, the tax money allocated to fund the bail out is likely to be repaid very handsomely. But don't give too much credit to Obama for this; the rescue of GM was engineered by people from both parties and experts whose grasp of the situation far outreached Obama's fragile understanding of economic systems.



Bottom line, while I am impressed by the recovery so far, and very hopeful that it shall continue, I see little evidence to credit any of this to Obama. The credit is owed more to ordinary folks whose inspiration and hard work did the job. Obama is an elitist, whose main talent is persuasion and organizing people to achieve political ends. And even that has been successfully challenged by a congress who has become singularly unimpressed with his rhetoric. He's at the low end of the gene pool when it comes to a comprehensive understanding of the way the world works. But along the way, he has occasionally had some good advice from others, and the common sense to accept it -sometimes.



This not to say that any of his opponents offer a much more hopeful alternative. This election, like so many others, may be a question of choosing the lesser evil. If Obama wins, it may be simply due to voters choosing the devil they DO know.
ken
2012-01-10 07:25:27 UTC
No. And the job market is in shambles. The only reason the unemployment is going down is because people are giving up. The 9.0 to 8.6 drop where 120000 were created implies there are 30,000,000 people that are employed. The number is a sham and to bad you believe this is peachy.
tribeca_belle
2012-01-10 07:21:03 UTC
You mean as opposed to voting for another economy-wrecking Republican? Of course.
4WD Greg
2012-01-10 07:18:43 UTC
Absolutely. The private sector created 1.88 million new jobs last year.
?
2012-01-10 07:37:37 UTC
No, it doesn't show that his economic policies are working. Did you forget the reality of the numbers? Obama has had a hard time reconciling the reality of the enormous number of people who have dropped out of the employment market. Those people still count in the jobless market but this administration refuses to include them. It would put the unemployment percentage over 11%. Obama doesn't like those numbers and has persisted in ignoring those numbers. Will you continue to vote for someone who can't count?
?
2012-01-10 07:35:01 UTC
He has not created a job one, the private sector created those jobs. How stupid can anyone be to think this fool had a damn thing to do with it. Just think who many jobs would have been created if all those cost increasing, job killing regulations. The man and his senators have crippled job growth like no other.
IceT
2012-01-10 07:26:15 UTC
It is?! There are 2 reasons that the unemployment went down. The first is all the temporary holiday help that was hired. The second is the 250K who dropped out of the job market because they could not find a job! If the work force were the same size today as it was when O'Bama took office unemployment would be 16%.



Because so many people have stopped working we have the most people ever on food stamps and the highest poverty level in 50 years!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/03/food-stamp-usage-highest_n_917038.html



http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/14/business/la-fi-poverty-census-20110914



So no I will not be voting for more of this!
?
2012-01-10 07:20:07 UTC
Probably, especially considering the group of scumbags vying for the GOP nomination.
suthrnlyts™
2012-01-10 07:23:37 UTC
Based on bogus numbers? Not on your life.





One continuing sign of employment weakness is the still-low labor force participation rate, which remained unchanged at 64%. That is down from 64.3% a year ago. Another 50,000 workers left the labor force in December, suggesting that many Americans have simply stopped looking for work … in 2007 when jobs were plentiful the labor force participation rate was 66%. The two percentage point decline is the equivalent of about three million fewer Americans working or looking for work.



So we have three million fewer people looking for work now than we did back in 2007. Now here’s the statistic the ObamaMedia REALLY does not want to present to you. If we had the same number of people looking for work today as they were in 2007, our unemployment rate would be more like 10.9%. Do you get it? The primary reason the unemployment numbers are down is because so many people have just thrown up their hands and said “to hell with it.” Wow! Now that’s some real economic recovery, wouldn’t you say?
wayfaroutthere
2012-01-10 07:25:01 UTC
I'll vote for him, but not because I think he waved a wand and fixed the economy or anything. Obama didn't get the chance to do half of what was needed--and mostly for that reason I have trouble giving the government credit for bringing back the economy. Some of Obama's cheaper early programs, along with some of the (perhaps too expensive) bipartisan bailouts, did stop the economy from continuing to go down the drain. I don't think Obama's programs did a lot to bring us back out of the hole--but if you remember the Obama and McCain campaigns--neither one really wanted to spend their way out of this. Debate centered around whether it is a good time for the government to fund infrastructure improvements, with some saying we don't have the money now and others saying it's a good thing to go into debt for--that it will make/save the US, and its citizens and corporate citizens, money in the long run.



Can the communist republicans please shut up? Not talking to all the cons-I'm talking to the fools who don't want him to spend a dime, see that a bunch of new jobs were created, and then say he didn't create a single job because he didn't have the state take over production and hire.... Make some sense please, are you communists or capitalists? If you (as a conservative) continue to complain that we aren't communist enough, someone may take you seriously and decide to fix that problem--and I know I don't want that. It's not quite as silly as the ones pointing out that the private sector made a bunch of jobs, not Obama, but it's close. Isn't that exactly how the Republicans think it should work? The Democrats agree that that is how it should work. That is how it is working. But the republicans still whine about it.



Expertgal--yes, that is how the Republicans have changed Washington. It used to be that if your side lost, you'd just watch the other side and make sure they don't go to crazy or be too stupid. Now Republicans use every administrative block they can to stop anything the Democrats do. It's the new politics. Bush started it by overusing the veto and executive orders. Now that it is clear that the Republicans do not care about the US more than they care about their jobs, now Reid hase decided that they are no longer taking the high road to losing, and are going to paralyze any Republican attempts at government. If the Republicans don't believe in the will of the people and think that congressional rules rule the nation, the Democrats are more than willing to play along.
justa
2012-01-10 07:32:00 UTC
Watching Romney react to a bit of good news was bemusing.

He said Obama can't claim credit. Apparently Obama can only be blamed.



We won't ever know if Obama had a good plan or not, almost all of it was blocked by a do nothing House that wants him and the country to fail so they can reclaim an office they truly consider theirs.

The stimulus and the support to companies that were mismanaged, while not my favorite move on his part did work, so maybe the other plans he had to drag us out of this would have worked quicker.



We'll never know.



I won't vote for a Republican in a national election. I don't like the way they govern. I have voted for Republicans on local elections, and now I'm no so sure I will again. They seem to have lost their way.

I wasn't for Obama, I was for Hillary, but I think Obama has done better than I thought he would, and under very difficult conditions, he will have my vote come November.
balsinger
2016-10-29 04:49:55 UTC
i'm sorry, i could have blinked and ignored precisely what those "regulations" are... All I observed became an over-trillion greenback Obamacare equipment crammed down our throats, GM bailouts favoring unions over shareholders, 1000 billion greenback stimulus whose jobs and funds are the two lengthy-lengthy previous and to FOB (acquaintances of Obama) agencies who created purely funds for their own company coffers, GITMO closed then nevertheless open, the conflict in Iraq nevertheless being waged and our troops nevertheless dying there, weapons being shipped on the taxpayer dime to Mexican cartels for use to kill our own border brokers, divisive politics and the further separation of the folk by way of prompted ideological propagandizing of modern-day events, the fee of all varieties of ability being raised "inevitably",... all akin to the 0.33 term of GWB! yet, sorry could have ignored it while the economic device all of sudden confirmed an "uptick"! And talking of "ticking":
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:20:44 UTC
Yes I DO can we compeer him to RR Romney? No we can't Take a look on that..

Gingrich’s latest invention: The Romney ‘baloney meter’

CONCORD, N.H. -- Newt Gingrich's campaign is playing off the candidate's most memorable line at the weekend "Meet the Press" Republican presidential debate, calling on Mitt Romney to drop what Gingrich called the former Massachusetts governor's "pious baloney" about working in the private sector, with an anti-Romney video on Monday. The spot introduces a "baloney meter" that hits full capacity whenever Romney speaks on the screen.

"Mitt Romney: baloney then. Baloney now," the text on the video reads. The clip is part of Gingrich's new website www.StopRomneysPiousBaloney.com, launched after the debate. The site portrays Romney with his hands in the air above a baloney sandwich that fills most of the screen.

Watch the video here:

The tone of the video and the new website is a departure from campaign ads that Gingrich has sponsored so far in the campaign. After an attempt to run what he called a "clean" and "positive" campaign in Iowa that left him in fourth place in the state, Gingrich pivoted has pivoted his strategy to focus on his opponents--and specifically on Romney.





http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AlSFG6nwwbCYHOzG.Xjp1nybvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVpNW84ZGFmBGEDMTIwMTEwIG5ld3MgZ2luZ3JpY2ggYmFsb25leSBtZXRlciB0BGNjb2RlA29ubGluZS1ub3RpZXJzBGNwb3MDNQRnA2lkLTExNDM0NzgEaW50bAN1cwRtY29kZQNvbmxpbmUtbm90aWVycwRtcG9zAzIEcGtndAMyBHBrZ3YDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDdGQtbndzBHNsawN0aXRsZQR0ZXN0AzQzNQR3b2UDMTI3NzIzNTM-/SIG=13k0dua5h/EXP=1326288510/**http%3A//news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-latest-invention-romney-baloney-meter-033215272.html
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:26:04 UTC
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!



Hoo, good one.



http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns14000000

Unemployment for 2001-2011



Unemployment was at 4.6% in January 2007, the last time the Republicans had control of the government.



After the Democrats gained a majority in both houses of Congress in the 2006 election, unemployment doubled. And it kept rising to a peak of 10.1% in October 2009.



It finally dropped below 9.2% (double the January 2007 level) in January 2011. Which happens to be when the Republicans gained a majority in the House.



The more Democrats gained control of our goverment, the higher unemployment rose. Then it started falling when Democrats started losing their grip on power.
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:18:36 UTC
Which economic policies are working? dont you have to pass something in order for it to work? I would also assume that having created a single job would also be an indicator. Considering he took office with 7.7% and now has 8.5% unemployment I'm not sure how that qualifies as turning around.
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:23:38 UTC
Probably, depending on who the GOP nominates and the debates.
Sarah
2012-01-10 07:20:38 UTC
22 straight months of private sector job growth. Kept us safe at home. Eliminated more than two dozen terrorist leaders. Deported more illegals than any other president.



Yes, I'll vote for him
Mr Burns
2012-01-10 07:27:35 UTC
If i can yes (not a US resident)
?
2012-01-10 07:22:59 UTC
Sure
Cptainamer
2012-01-10 07:19:57 UTC
Let's see if your as optimistic when we see the Feb. reports after the seasonal spike is accounted for....
Gus McCrae
2012-01-10 07:18:23 UTC
Never, ever, ever going to vote for the socialist or any other liberal.
hdean45
2012-01-10 07:19:12 UTC
No too little too late.
anonymous
2012-01-10 07:19:00 UTC
lol


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...