Looking for an Honest Answer

[Anonymous]

Leaving Romney totally out of the out of the picture (like Obama was running unopposed), does anyone believe that the economy will improve over the next 4 years with the current administration?

[Anonymous]

Yes. It will be slow going but we are on the right track. If we can get rid of our obstructionist congress, we will be in very good shape.

[jsteele]

A lot depends on the outcome of the Congressional elections. If the Senate changes hands or the make up of the House changes significantly, it would have a major impact. Obama's agenda would not necessarily change. However, economists on both sides seem to be putting a lot of faith in the "business cycle" which they expect to improve. So, the slow plodding improvement we have been seeing would likely continue.

One wildcard would be if the far-right Tea Party types finally overplay their hand this cycle. We know that the Tea Party cost Republicans multiple seats in the last 2010 election. It looks like the same may be true for Missouri this time. Romney, a former moderate, has moved to the right because of the Tea Party. If he loses, and Senate seats are lost again, a narrative may develop that the Republican Party has moved too far to the right and needs a correction. Then, people like Jeb Bush would step forward to lead it back to the center. That could lead to a Congress that is much less obstructive.

[Anonymous]

jsteele - I wish what you say would actually occur. I want to believe these things are possible. But, sadly, I just don't think political debate will become more civil anytime in the near future. Unfortunately, the ugliness comes at the absolute worst possible time for the country. And that is all before you even get into the discussion about how money has corrupted out political system.

Ugh - it all makes me want to bang my head against a wall. I have 2 degrees in politics/policy, and even I am giving up.

To the original question - I think the economy is slowly getting better, but until we have some stability in the political system where financial/tax policy becomes more clear, things are going to be shaky and on the edge.

[Anonymous]

I don't know the answer to the OP's question, but I do know it depends on a lot outside this city and even outside this country. If Europe implodes, if the Chinese economy seriously falters - both of which are reasonably possible and in the case of Europe, maybe even likely - then we could be seeing a global recession. Under any US president's watch.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:A lot depends on the outcome of the Congressional elections. If the Senate changes hands or the make up of the House changes significantly, it would have a major impact. Obama's agenda would not necessarily change. However, economists on both sides seem to be putting a lot of faith in the "business cycle" which they expect to improve. So, the slow plodding improvement we have been seeing would likely continue.

One wildcard would be if the far-right Tea Party types finally overplay their hand this cycle. We know that the Tea Party cost Republicans multiple seats in the last 2010 election. It looks like the same may be true for Missouri this time. Romney, a former moderate, has moved to the right because of the Tea Party. If he loses, and Senate seats are lost again, a narrative may develop that the Republican Party has moved too far to the right and needs a correction. Then, people like Jeb Bush would step forward to lead it back to the center. That could lead to a Congress that is much less obstructive.

Europe is another wildcard, and one that may impact the electin, not just the next 4 years.

Also, to be fair, Akin is not really being propped up by the Tea Party, but by evangelical, conservative Christians. There's overlap, but the groups are not coterminus. I believe at least a few TP organizations have called for him to step down.

[Anonymous]

The economy is actually doing better than many think. It's my understanding from the press that we'd be pretty far along on a jobs recovery if it hadn't been for the volume of cuts in public sector employment. Meanwhile, corporations have good balance sheets and overall, the US is well positioned vs. the other major economies. Obama was, alas, deferential to his former mates in Congress during his first term. Once he realizes that he is in fact the executive in our three branch system, it won't matter much who controls the House or Senate. But he needs to grow some....to do this. Perhaps there's been a bit too much reliance on Pete Rouse's deep knowledge of the Senate. Stockholm syndrome and all that.

[Anonymous]

Of course! Obama is god. He came in on the Change horse and changed everything for the worse. THe best way to grow an economy is to increase taxes, increase regulation, and have everyone work for the government.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it's all cyclic.

[Anonymous]

If it were just Romney, I might say yes, but it's all of the social baggage that I think they will get caught up into. I also think that Europe is a huge wildcard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It will be slow going but we are on the right track. If we can get rid of our obstructionist congress, we will be in very good shape.

First response already had a built in excuse for another four years of slow growth and little progress. I guess it's time to stop blaming Bush and start blaming Congress.

And BTW, who were the obstructionists his first two years in office; you remember, when DC was finally granted statehood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It will be slow going but we are on the right track. If we can get rid of our obstructionist congress, we will be in very good shape.

First response already had a built in excuse for another four years of slow growth and little progress. I guess it's time to stop blaming Bush and start blaming Congress.

And BTW, who were the obstructionists his first two years in office; you remember, when DC was finally granted statehood.

How the F*ck is this relevant at ALL to your questin about the economy, Pee-sat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's all cyclic.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's all cyclic.

Are you saying that the economy under the Clinton administration was just lust luck? What about "it's the economy stupid". No longer relavant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it's all cyclic.

Are you saying that the economy under the Clinton administration was just lust luck? What about "it's the economy stupid". No longer relavant?

I'll take this one for the win, peace dividend > massive cuts to defense ( read two divisions, no major weapon systems procured) > attack on our soil for our complacency. Thanks Bill.

Oh and let's not forgot the dot com bubble and 2001 recession.