Yes, unlike conservatives I do not depend on the government to make my life better.

Some of you need to step away from the political insider stuf that clouds your visions.

If I am unemployed, someone working 2-3 jobs, or underemployed, all these stats mean nothing. Someone going through something isnt going to be convinced they are better or worse off with folks throwing a bunch of stats and figures.

More importantly, the real problem Obama faces is what is happening now. Not 2-3 years ago.

Normal folks who dont live and breathe this stuff live in the now. If the economy improves between now and November, Obama could win. Not saying thats a given but all of you throwing out "the last 9 months before November" nonsense arent touching the everyday people. You just arguing with the super educated voter who already made up their mind.

I think too many times, we junkies get warped into thinking that everyone lives in our little Dem and GOP bubble when its not true at all. Thats why there are still undecideds and folks on both parties wavering.

Anonymous wrote:let's see a chart comparing snow days under each president.

no serious economist believes issues as complex as national economies are driven by a sole white house occupant.

this is high school-level thinking.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Why should they address home values at all? They are over-inflated. We know that, so what are we supposed to do, re-inflate them?

A slower ride down would have been easier for the economy to absorb. The reason to address it is to try and dampen the shock in consumption.

The President can't control the price of houses any more than the stock market. It is what it is. I know this hurt some people, but there's nothing that can be done.



Take a look at this graph. The black line is the Case Shiller index of home values. This graph says that a home in 2006 was worth 2.3 times what it was worth in 2000. By the end of 2011 it was worth 150% of what it was in 2000.

So how do you decide what is fair? Can you honestly say that a home SHOULD be worth more than 150% of what it was in 2000?

I think a President should try to encourage renegotiation of loans vs. foreclosure. But to suggest that he should actually alter the market value of homes is unreasonable.

I am the original poster and I don't know how you interpreted my comments that way. I clearly stated that I thought the President could have done something on the margin, which in my understanding points to renegotiation of loans, targeting assistance to especially hard hit communities (e.g., Las Vegas) etc. I don't know how you got where you did but no one asserted the point you seem to want to argue.

I thought you or some pp (see above) said he needed to address home values. That's why I responded with a graph showing home values.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Why should they address home values at all? They are over-inflated. We know that, so what are we supposed to do, re-inflate them?

A slower ride down would have been easier for the economy to absorb. The reason to address it is to try and dampen the shock in consumption.

The President can't control the price of houses any more than the stock market. It is what it is. I know this hurt some people, but there's nothing that can be done.



Take a look at this graph. The black line is the Case Shiller index of home values. This graph says that a home in 2006 was worth 2.3 times what it was worth in 2000. By the end of 2011 it was worth 150% of what it was in 2000.

So how do you decide what is fair? Can you honestly say that a home SHOULD be worth more than 150% of what it was in 2000?

I think a President should try to encourage renegotiation of loans vs. foreclosure. But to suggest that he should actually alter the market value of homes is unreasonable.

I am the original poster and I don't know how you interpreted my comments that way. I clearly stated that I thought the President could have done something on the margin, which in my understanding points to renegotiation of loans, targeting assistance to especially hard hit communities (e.g., Las Vegas) etc. I don't know how you got where you did but no one asserted the point you seem to want to argue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Why should they address home values at all? They are over-inflated. We know that, so what are we supposed to do, re-inflate them?

A slower ride down would have been easier for the economy to absorb. The reason to address it is to try and dampen the shock in consumption.

The President can't control the price of houses any more than the stock market. It is what it is. I know this hurt some people, but there's nothing that can be done.



Take a look at this graph. The black line is the Case Shiller index of home values. This graph says that a home in 2006 was worth 2.3 times what it was worth in 2000. By the end of 2011 it was worth 150% of what it was in 2000.

So how do you decide what is fair? Can you honestly say that a home SHOULD be worth more than 150% of what it was in 2000?

I think a President should try to encourage renegotiation of loans vs. foreclosure. But to suggest that he should actually alter the market value of homes is unreasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Why should they address home values at all? They are over-inflated. We know that, so what are we supposed to do, re-inflate them?

A slower ride down would have been easier for the economy to absorb. The reason to address it is to try and dampen the shock in consumption.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Why should they address home values at all? They are over-inflated. We know that, so what are we supposed to do, re-inflate them?

As a friend said to me yesterday - 4 years ago yesterday the Presidential candidates suspended their campaigns to go to Washington to address the crisis. Yesterday, the Republican candidate went sailing. Are we in a better place now? Hell yes.

I'm a Dem and I love the President, but to answer #2, he should have dealt better and faster with home values. They didn't do so because it cost too much to fix the whole problem but I think they could have addressed the margin much better than they did. That said, I wouldn't trade this President for any money. No one could have predicted how this economy was going to roll out or what things would prove, in hindsight, to be key. I think he's done a better job than pretty much anyone else might have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Four years ago we faced the possibility of the collapse of the entire financial system. It's hard to capture the meaning of that in a graph.

But it's pretty easy to know we don't want to go back to the policies that lead to that crisis.

If you're a banker, why not? Have you seen anyone tried and sent to jail for 2008? Even the schmuck who ran Lehman Brothers got off.

let's see a chart comparing snow days under each president.

no serious economist believes issues as complex as national economies are driven by a sole white house occupant.

this is high school-level thinking.

Anonymous wrote:Four years ago we faced the possibility of the collapse of the entire financial system. It's hard to capture the meaning of that in a graph.

But it's pretty easy to know we don't want to go back to the policies that lead to that crisis.

Four years ago we faced the possibility of the collapse of the entire financial system. It's hard to capture the meaning of that in a graph.

I just ran across an interesting pair of charts that give the Dem and Repub answer to this question.

Here is the Dem version, showing steady improvement in the private sector jobs data: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/04/answering-the-are-you-better-off-question-in-1-chart-obama-edition/

Here is the Repub version, showing the drop in HHI (red line) and rise in unemployment (black line) from Jan 2000 through May 2012:


I have two comments/questions, and I'm curious to hear reaction.

1. I'm a Dem, so probably somewhat biased. When I look at the Repub chart, it's striking to me how weak the economy was throughout the entire Bush2 presidency. Before looking at this chart, I'd have guessed the economy in the 2005-07 period was marginally stronger than it had been when Bush2 took office. But in fact, it was somewhat weaker than 2000. And the real killer period for the economy seems to be in the year before Obama took office. It actually seems as if Obama might be in the process of pulling the economy out of its tailspin. But as I said, I'm probably biased, so maybe I see that data in a way Repubs might not. For my Repub friends, how do you read those numbers? What reasonable (not ridiculous talking points) view do you have? Do you also view the economy's nosedive as having begun during Bush2? Do you view the ugly 2009-12 period as Obama's "fault"?

2. The only reasonable message I've heard so far from some Repubs is that while the tanking economy was not Obama's fault, Obama should be faulted for not having taken steps to solve the problem faster. If that's your view, what sort of steps do you think should have been taken? I cannot find any Repubs who will specify what steps would have turned the economy around faster, which makes me skeptical and suspicious that it's just a talking point and not a fact-based claim.