Read the full Article : http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/economy-and-election
HAD Barack Obama lost to Mitt Romney yesterday, the explanation would have barely taken up a sentence: the economy defeated him. Mr Romney’s mission from day one was simple. Pound home the message that Mr Obama took a bad economy and made it worse, and leave the facts to do the rest: unemployment stuck at around 8% and four straight years of trillion-dollar deficits ... " the Economist"
Read the full Article : http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/11/economy-and-election
47 Comments
Eco3311-10am-4983
11/7/2012 01:37:11 pm
In my opinion, Mitt Romney does not get the support from the low class people. The majorities really like Mr. president healthcare system, since the healthcare system is already pass by the congress. Obama got lots of supporter and lots of votes. I know there are lots of people don’t go to vote and don’t care who is running for the president because this will not effect their life at all. Obama won this battle because he knows how people want to hear and what people needs for next for years.
Reply
ECO_10am_10508054
11/7/2012 11:28:04 pm
This article is about the fact that the macroeconomic policies we have been learning about in class have been put into a position of power once again for the next four years. Although it is nice to know that America is getting out of this recession faster than the other countries we typically hear about, it is still a troubling statistic. We need stability that doesn't come from a President, but from a cooperative Congress. People believe that the President makes all of the policies in Washington, but it's really Congress which decides what passes and what doesn't. Fiscal cliff isn't Obama's deal, it's Congresses. The fact that they can't come to an agreement just shows how poorly we have chosen our Congress members. You can't get a real job if you can't cooperate with others. That's a fact.
Reply
Eco_10am_00829857
11/8/2012 01:41:47 am
It is almost comedic how the economy has single handedly almost killed President Obamas reputation and then in the dying months of his presidency, it is the economy that enabled his second term to happen. This inability to read the economic behavior of the United States goes to show that no matter who is president as this particular time, their will be many billions and trillions of dollars spent to get out of this whole. Whether that money is spent on military, educational funding or outsourcing to other countries for production, it doesn't matter. That amount of government spending shouldn't effect the American people as greatly as it is now. However, this is not Obamas fault. It all starts with many of the bills that Bill Clinton and George Bush passed in their presidential terms that allowed these short term fixes to occur at such a devastating level. I know that most people look at the numbers and see that Clinton lowered the unemployment rate so greatly and that means he is a great president, when all he did was put a 100 billion dollar band-aid on the issue at hand. Then, George Bush completely eradicates any hopes for a balanced budget by subsequently over funding the war in Iraq (I'm not trying to say that Iraq was not an important issue, because it was of course). That being said, President Obama is receiving the majority of blame for past presidential issues that he should not be subjected to. It is often said in the business world, you have to spend money to make money. This is a fact in the world of revenue. The reason that their has been so much "red" on the income statements and balance sheets in the United States is because money is being spent to fix these problems permanently, which should have been done in the late 90's and early 2000's. I am not advocating any president is better than any other, but the last 6 months of the economy has shown that by spending money in the correct places it can hold extreme benefits for an economy as large and unpredictable as our is today.
Reply
ECO_10am_10390258
11/8/2012 01:45:12 am
These macroeconomic policies learned in class will be in place for another four years. Congress is going to be the change, one man cannot change it all. The American people are going to need to change if we want to grow strong again. We need to stop free loading, work hard and become more educated through investing in education. Giving people the free benefits does nothing for the future it provides a cover for the struggles in the time being. What does provide a long term cover is knowledge and support from the educated. Let's do this by activating and taking full advantage of our systems that will lead us to a more educated working class.
Reply
ECO_10am_10361563
11/8/2012 04:35:34 am
This article clearly explains the issues in America's economy today, and how macroeconomics can be used to decide where our economy is going or can go. Just as everyone above me has said, the President in our country does not decide every bill on his own, it has to pass through Congress first. With the fact that Congress will stay exactly as it has the last 4 years isn't all that pleasing sounding to me. In order for our economy to keep growing like it is, and to hopefully speed up the growing process, we need to count on Congress to stick together and get the job done. Until then, we will probably see a national unemployment rate stuck around 8%, and we will see our deficit grow due to government spending. It's up to Congress to do the right thing.
Reply
ECO_10am_00545182
11/8/2012 07:32:15 am
I believe that Obama's policies and future plans for this country are going in the wrong direction. I think that taking the upper class down and the bringing the lower class up to make one big union of people is not what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Declaration. I have been tought my entire life to strive for success and if you come up short just try try again, and with Obama in office it almost seems like people aren't have to strive for greatness anymore. If they do become educated and get in the right job and make great money, then it is just going to be taken away from them and given to someone who was not as successful. I am not against all that Obama does and I am not also not for everything that Romney said he was going to do. I believe that we American's are going to have to just do the best that we can to be successful in our many years to come. Our president and our congress is going to have to pull us out of this hole that we have dug ourselves. To get our unemployment rate below 8% then we are going to have to issue more jobs in the U.S. rather than sending work out to other countries because it is cheaper. These next four years are going to be a work in progress but I can see that our economy is steadily rising from the past four years were it plumitted into the ground. Hopefully everything that Obama promised will come true.
Reply
ECO_10am_10464148
11/8/2012 10:22:25 am
This article shows how the material we have been learning in class directly applies to the US today. As the first paragraph says, had the President not won reelection it could simply be chalked up to the economy. But, this election and how the people have interpreted our current economic standing and the steps that have been taken to improve it. The Democratic campaign did a great job of reaching and expanding supporters. The Republican campaign was caught off gard and did not do a good job of truly representing the economic standing of the US. Now it will be important to create bipartisan communication. The President is not the key to improving the economy, Congress is.
Reply
ECO_10am_01964335
11/8/2012 01:52:26 pm
It is very interesting to read about how economic factors and policies effected the election as it did. The fact that the Euro Crisis turning for the better rather than the worse could have turned the tide in the Presidential election makes everything we have learned in economics tie together to real occurrences. This article has many things that I have learned about in my economics classes and it is cool to see them tie together outside of the classroom.
Reply
ECO_10am_00855168
11/9/2012 12:28:52 am
As usual for talking heads and partisan bloggers, this article misses the mark. The truth is that no one has yet been able to prove how much immediate impact is made on the economy by current policies, and how much is a cyclical effect. The only real fact we need to know is that a continued lack of cooperation and dispersement of radical partisan views by pundits and media talking heads will eventually lead to our ruin. We are bludgeoning ourselves with our own stupidity. Only through bipartisan cooperation and conciliation will true change be wrought.
Reply
ECO3311.001 102-94-248
11/9/2012 01:19:47 am
The article simply explains that the election was a close one because of the current economic state. Had President Obama not been able to change the narrative and addressed the "what-if" we hadn't added stimulus money at the cost of raising the National Debt, we probably could've been worse off right now. The president has a tough road ahead, but the economy itself although the biggest issue, wasn't enough to break his base and his supporters from voting. The alternative with Mr. Romney didn't prove much more efficient than President Obama, which is why he wasn't successful at his Presidential bid. The article clearly shows that there was many significant events that aligned with President Obama to show to the people that the Economy was recovering, and that might have been why he got elected for 4 more years.
Reply
Eco_10am_09153313
11/9/2012 03:55:32 am
There was talk of the stimulus and the policies enacted by the President over the previous four years were the correct actions in order to promote long-term growth. However, the the influx of money, all they did was provide a sugar or caffeine high to get you past that mid-morning slump, but the country will crash in the afternoon as they come back down because we will feel the effects of inflation.
Reply
Eco 10AM- 10323223
11/9/2012 06:34:00 am
The improvement in economy in the Summer of 2012 may have given President Obama the re-election. The economy always effects the election but none so much as the 2012 presidential race. Many voters were not thrilled with ether canidates, but many believed that Obama was not at fault for the entirety of the bad economic situation. It will take 4 more years to see if the American people made the right choice, to make the economy improve for years to come.
Reply
Eco_10AM_10385611
11/9/2012 07:25:49 am
I think this article puts a little too much stock in the results of the election on the perception of the economy by the voters. The economy showing signs improving surely helped Obama win the election but many polls show voter confidence residing with the Republican party on handling the economy. The article also seems to look past the tax increases that the Obama administration plans on passing which could prolong the recession and slow recovery.
Reply
ECO_10AM_79685
11/11/2012 03:41:34 am
While the author makes some valid points, I think he is failing to consider multiple other reasons voters supported Obama and/or did not support Romney. I am a conservative AND an econ major in school and macroeconomic theories didn't much factor into my decision at the polls. The average American does not really grasp these theories, and I think ultimately, there were too many other factors at play here to congratulate Obama on his macroeconomic policies alone.
Reply
ECO_10am_10025293
11/11/2012 04:06:34 am
Yes, our economy is starting to look a little better, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be accomplished to help the overall US economy in the long run. The article simply explains that the election was a close one because of the current economic state. The unemployment rate did not get any better throughout president obama's time, and instead we are even more in debt. I am worried about what the future will be now that obama is in again for another 4 years. Especially since while he was in office, he really didn't fix anything. Our country needs someone to come into office and implement some new policies that will benefit everyone, but mainly the middle class. If the middle class is stable, then the overall economy normally improves.
Reply
eco_10am_10346791
11/11/2012 10:36:36 am
Although the author had some good points throughout the article, I think he also missed a lot of good points why people voted the way they did. Me even being an economics major most of these points didn't come into my decision on who to vote for. There are thousands of other beliefs and values that make different people vote different ways.
Reply
Eco_10am_R10310897
11/12/2012 02:38:37 am
The article was very good in showing some of the points the presidential candidates made during their campaigns. The Romney side stressed on the inability of the president to fix the economy. The points given in the article are why I decided to vote the way I did.I personally felt like Mitt Romney would do a good job fixing the economy. We will see what obama does to improve the economy in his second term.
Reply
eco 10am R10346808
11/12/2012 09:48:37 am
the article talked a lot about the effect the economy had on the election as well the affect the winning parties (Obama is this case) policies would affect the economy and if macroeconomics would still be the driving force in the economy. In my opinion, Obama's policies is to much government for the economy that we have to fully prosper. Also, as the economy continues to be down around the country, many Americans start to ask which candidate will most help them instead of asking themselves which candidate will better the country.
Reply
eco 10 am r10363923
11/12/2012 10:11:29 pm
I would have to agree that the health care system is what pushed Obama over the top. All of the lower class citizens that maybe can't afford health care voted for Obama. People want to see if the system actually works and to work; it needs more time. All I have to say is good luck getting into any doctors office in a short period of time.
Reply
ECO_10am_10383041
11/13/2012 06:18:40 am
Yes, the economy did not get much better with Barack Obama as president until the end of his first term, but as it stated in the article, George Bush did not leave him on good tracks. I am a Republican and did not like Romney as the Republican candidate, but did not want Obama as the president either. The election was very close in margin. Romney made Obama look like he was solely responsible for the poor economy in his 4 years in office. I don’t agree with Obama’s tax policies or health care system. I believe we need change, but I don’t think Obama is the one we need to look for, for the change. I think congress needs to step up and make better decisions about fiscal and budgetary policies. Since, Obama will be our president for the next 4 years, I only hope he can make changes for the better and prove that he was the best choice for the United States.
Reply
Eco_10am_10059451
11/13/2012 07:24:54 am
This election was the closest I have every seen. The reason why I believe President Obama received another term is because people wanted to give him more time to fix our economy. Grant you that it was only half of the country that voted for him, he won Florida and Ohio whose great number of retirees and auto companies greatly support his polices. This article shows that despite who is in office, they will have to handle the US economy with patients and care. They must reunited the broken senate and work together on the issues at hand
Reply
Eco_10am_10338381
11/13/2012 10:29:19 am
It seems like knowing the importance of the economy was key to the election. Obviously macroeconomics effects the entire nation. Therefore, Romney used it as a platform to gain support. In response obama paid more attention to the economy and began slow improvements. This is what allowed obama to negate the support romney had gained from the economy.Obama continues to impact the deficit though which is a huge economic factor. Oil prices and the euro crisis have gone the economies way lately. The economy was a key factor in the election and is in today's society.
Reply
Eco_10am_7034
11/13/2012 10:34:44 am
The election this year was very interesting. We haven't had an election so close in many years, Obama had his thoughts with Obamacare health care plan, and Romney was using arguments saying the president had his 4 years and the plan didn't work and now it was his turn. Obama won the election because simply, the majority of the people want to see if his plans could actually be implemented so that they work to boost our economy.
Reply
Matthew Stimson
11/13/2012 10:51:07 am
The article discusses how macroeconomic policies are put in place in today's policies. The fact that basic macroeconomic policies are present is encouraging for a poor economy. The economy is finally showing signs of growth as the unempoyment rate has reached under 8% for the first time in over 8 years. This is no coinincedence as the policies planned for this to occur. Keeping an optimistic, spending mindset will help the economy grow more. The more we spend, the greater the economy will increase. The more loans people take, the more money in the economy. This will increase the GDP and incomes of households.
Reply
Eco_10am_10390914
11/13/2012 10:58:35 am
It's shocking to see how many economic factors could have turned out different and could have cost him the presidency. I'm left wondering how much of it came down to luck. It will be interesting to see in the coming months if the president can work with Republicans to move the fiscal cliff.
Reply
R10716587
11/13/2012 12:49:45 pm
i think the author has a great point of view, but what really helped Obama get relected was the ObamaCare he reached out to the lower class families and got the extra support he needed. Another thing that was at his favor was Hurricane Sandy he actually went out there and helped out the people who had lost their homes. Even if Obama won't have won there is still going to bad economy or could have gotten worse or it would just stay the same. For the next four years we will have to wait and see how this policy turned out and what is there to do with the economy
Reply
Noel 00850977
11/13/2012 01:02:00 pm
This article does an excellent job of allowing the reader to understand how each candidate's economic plan played a role in the election. Romney was for austerity, Obama is for stimulus. A few more people out there want stimulus rather than austerity, and it resulted in another democratic win. The question is, how long will the Fed be able to print dollars with a slowing economy? Also, I read somewhere that China and Russia are dumping dollars and have vowed to eventually exclude the dollar from their dealings. I wonder how that will affect us both micro and macroeconomically? All in all, a well written article.
Reply
r10362243
11/14/2012 12:20:28 am
This race was over over close and I personally believe that neither candidate is qualified for the job. I would have loved to have seen Ron Paul be the president. The whole thing about health care and how candidates reach out to the lower classes is a tough support. Obama's healthcare plan is interesting but it makes private health care more expensie for those that already have it. Economics is basically studying causes and effects so each decision is very important. But what I do not think people notice is that it is not the government's job to assist everyone for every little thing. We do have an excessive amount of people on welfare or some kind of government aid. No one wants cut backs but they are neccesary for a budget to get this country back on track. That's why Ron Paul retired recently because he feels the current American's view of the government is messed up. Macroeconomics is very important. Every decision by the president sends a shock wave of effect into the United States but we have to understand that no effect comes without a cause, so deficits will not close without cuts to spending.
Reply
Eco_10am_00451258
11/14/2012 12:29:37 am
I think this article shows the vast size of our government. During the duration of this course you have shown us many different factors that influence the economy. I feel like this shows how much the president is just a figure head and the little impact they actually have. There are too many factors outside of the president's control. Having said that, obviously the president's agenda is going to have a little influence. For example, entitlement programs is one area the president can influence our savings.
Reply
Eco_10am_00451258
11/14/2012 01:13:27 am
I think this article shows the vast size of our government. During the duration of this course you have shown us many different factors that influence the economy. I feel like this shows how much the president is just a figure head and the little impact they actually have. There are too many factors outside of the president's control. Having said that, obviously the president's agenda is going to have a little influence. For example, entitlement programs is one area the president can influence our economy. I think Obama struggles in this area.
Reply
Eco_10am_r10330267
11/14/2012 07:47:26 am
This article disects how President Obama and his policies have affected the economy and how narrowly thin he came to losing his second term because of it. The President inherited a horrible economy and was given the difficult task of turning it around quick enough to get himself re-elected to finish the job as most economists say fixing the great recession would take far more than 4 years.
Reply
Eco_10am_00866318
11/14/2012 09:26:57 am
I agree with the statement from the article about Mr Obama needs to make peace with the Republicans in order to move the fiscal cliff. However, I don't think it is necessarily true to say that the Democratic win meant the general public understands more about macroeconomic theory. It is wishful thinking. There are many other factors to examine for why people voted for Mr Obama. American growth remains fragile and politicians have many tough policy decisions to make regarding taxes, reforms etc.
Reply
Chris Rogers Eco 10 am
11/14/2012 10:42:22 am
For me I feel like the opposing parties would oppose each other even if they knew they others views were correct, just because they are dedicated to competing at this point. The republicans saying things that are not true, but twist it to try, and receive more votes from average american citizens. Luckily we all know better, and can make decisions based on what we know.
Reply
Eco_10am_10391211
11/14/2012 12:05:57 pm
It is interesting to see how this article shows certain factors that may have helped Obama get re-elected, but in my opinion it doesn't matter who the president is and what kind of record they have. It is the policies we have in place that are hurting this countries economy. Another big problem is the jobs we are losing due to many business's sending them over seas only to turn a bigger profit due to the cheap labor.
Reply
ECO_10am_00434630
11/14/2012 12:06:33 pm
A good majority of the voters were not economists, therefore I believe that they were voting in good faith, believing that the economy was going to get better because after all, how many of the voters really understand the economy enough to know HOW it was going to get better. Romney did not present a real definite fiscal plan and I believe by doing that it ultimately led to his downfall.
Reply
ECO_10am_R00463356
11/14/2012 12:32:43 pm
There were many economic factors in this election for voters to consider. It was a big topic and came up several over the election year. Obama caught a big break this past summer with the postive turn of events to the economy and in my opinion helped him win over votes in the population that don't normally pay attention to the small economic details. They saw a postive turn and may have decided that the current plan is working which locked in the votes needed for the win. Now it is time to wait and see if our already fragile economy will recieve the boost needed to encourage the growth promised.
Reply
ECO_10am_R10364551
11/14/2012 12:57:16 pm
To me the whole election has raised a ton of eye brow raisers. It came out earlier that Mr. Romney said the reason that he lost was because of "gifts" that Mr. Obama gave to the young voters, african americans, and the hispanics. Also the whole idea of Texas seceding, to me just doesn't seem like a good idea. I believe that we would go into war with not only the U.S. but also with Mexico. I do believe that Mr. Obama has got to do something about the unemployment rate. It is kinda scary because I am set to graduate in less than a year and this whole unemployment is starting to scare me. The Obama campaign can no longer blame the economic problem from being inherited, because he now has inherited his own problems.
Reply
ECO_10am_R00759089
11/14/2012 12:57:49 pm
I think congress is ultimately more responsible for the economy than Obama will ever be. It is up to them to come up with a plan to get this country back on track, all Obama can do is sign the bill. The stock market recently has taken the turn for the worst partly due to Obama's re-election. However, this is not so much his fault directly but a lack of confidence in our legislative branch to work together and compromise on a set of ideas that will keep taxes low and reduce deficits. If nothing is done by January I fear the recent gains we have seen in the economy will revert as we head over the "fiscal cliff." Hopefully Obama can do better this term as a mediator and bring the two parties together rather than trying to force just one parties ideals down the pipe further creating a bigger rift in congress.
Reply
Eco_10am_R00833588
11/14/2012 01:03:17 pm
In my opinion, I agreed with the author about how republicans would have done a better job on the medicare issue and that the election should have covered more on how they planed to fix this economic down swings. But it is good to see some proof of a economics turn around, due to the fact that not all the people are suffering so terribly that they would elect a new president.
Reply
ECO_10am_R10031219
11/14/2012 01:16:40 pm
This article, although well written, fails to mention a number of things concerning the election and the nation's economy (both present and future). It does however shine light on some policies that we have learned in class. Like a number of students have mentioned before, many uneducated citizens tend to think that the POTUS has complete control over passed bills and policies. This is not true, because things must be passed by Congress. The fact that our President and our Congress have so much disagreement just goes to show that until cooperation has been established things have the potential to get worse.
Reply
R10359791
11/14/2012 01:33:21 pm
Personally, I feel like Obama really does care about the people, but he cares, dare I say, too much? You can't help every single person in this nation or any other nation. They tell you to make good grades in school so you can get scholarships to colleges, yet most kids don't do good or work hard to get those grades. Still, they feel it is their right to get money for doing nothing. What happened to the good old days when what you worked for you kept? Now the 18 year old with her 4th kid working at a restaurant is sitting there saying she needs help to live. Well, no shit. You shouldn't have been having so much sex, and been working on schoolwork and studying you damn slut. You can have fun, but do some work. That's why your parents tell you to do good in school, go to college, and do good in college. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU GET AHEAD IN LIFE. Sorry for my rant on freeloaders.
Reply
ECO_10am_R10322351
11/14/2012 01:43:55 pm
Although I do agree with a few points of this author, I do not however agree that Obama should of been re-elected or the fact that Bush was to blame for the down economy. In a 4 year span at least some of the deficit should be fixed and that did not happen. He is trying to help out people that dont want a prosperous life for themselves and decide to give them money anyway. Our country was founded on hard work and earning your way to a higher class. The article does give very valuable information that I did not know about the Obama administration but still does not sway my view on the matter.
Reply
ECO_10am_R10473790
11/14/2012 01:59:40 pm
The Article goes into detail into how the economy brought Obama to acquiring a second term. I believe Obama did the best he could given the circumstances when he was first elected. I agree that Obama should be given another 4 years to show that the policy's he has enacted will help to bring this country out of the recession. Even Bill Clinton said he couldn't of done any better a job than Obama has done in his first term.
Reply
Eco_10am_R01964669
11/14/2012 07:30:23 pm
It is very interesting to read this article and see how economics relates to the election of the presidents of the United States. I do agree with the author in some points, but as for others i do not agree. I believe that Obama should not have been reelected. There was no improvement to the deficit and I have a strong belief that it will continue to increase throughtout the next four years. I believe that he will continue to lie just as he has the first four years.
Reply
R10364305
11/15/2012 11:14:43 am
I wish that this article would have gone into more depth about Obamacare. This issue is something that really worries me as a member of the middle class America. I know that as a whole the country believes that Obama is a an advocate of the middle class of America, but I disagree. Medical insurance is of high importance but I think it is something that I, as an American citizen, should be able to decide without worrying about a high tax penalty for my decision. I believe the Supreme Court made a fatal mistake by giving the government the power to tax the American citizen into submission.
Reply
ECO3311_10am_R10231388
11/15/2012 11:26:23 am
I personally do not believe in Obama's tax policies nor do I agree with his Health Care System. I have personally seen the effects on how it has placed many families who have worked very hard for their success into a money bind. The supreme court justice stated that it was not okay to tax into submission. Instead, we should have an alternative option instead of having to end up paying twice as much for insurance in the long-run. I agree with many people who state that Obama did not inherit the state of this economy and he has helped improve it in some ways. However; it is hard to tell whether or not winning this election was based on his improvements in our economy from this past summer or just a popularity vote based on Obama knowing exactly how to appeal to the people. Macroeconomics is a very important concept considered with this election, however it is not only the President that has a huge effect on the economy, it is Congress. I pray and hope that Congress steps it up these next four years. I honestly agree with many of the points that R1035979111 have stated, however; I haven't had the nerves to say all of that out loud. In terms of freeloaders, I completely agree. People need to work hard to achieve greatness. I have been working and building my resume since I was 15 because I have understood that our economy is constantly changing. Even so, with a stacked resume and 3 internships under my belt, I still worry about the future. People cannot just sit on their couches and hope for some change; they must make the change and work hard for what they want to earn for themselves.
Reply
R01964596
12/11/2012 07:17:06 am
Moderate Republican here. I'll be the first to tell you that the Bush administration did Obama no favors in terms of the economy he was handed. Nearly a trillion dollars were spent between January 1, 2008 to January 20th. The significance of those dates?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFree thinker .... Free Writer Archives
February 2017
Categories |