Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof - Obama is good for the economy!

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
There is a lot of talk about how bad Obama is for the economy, that he is a secret Muslim Communist hell bent on destroying the economy!!!

We all know that is extreme hyperbole, but it is hard to really gauge Obama's performance because everything can be spun and twisted to fit any agenda. The validity of employment numbers can be argued, government statistics can questioned and studies can be fabricated. But the one thing that cannot be denied is the markets that exist outside of the the partisan political world. The stock market is a representation of business transactions and the health of the American business community as a whole.

What do the markets say about Obama's performance in regards to the US economy?

Starbucks, the coffee house all of us know has nearly 20,000 locations and hundreds of thousands of
employees. Three days after Obama was sworn in, Starbucks was worth;

Price 01/23/09 - $9.08 per share

Today, less than 4 years later - Starbucks is worth:

Price 10/12/12 - $47.18 per share

That is over a 400% increase since Obama has been POTUS



Whole Foods, Health food super market has 331 locations and employs over 55,000 people.
Three days after Obama was elected, Whole Foods stock was worth;

Price 01/23/09 - $11.37 per share

Today less than 4 years later Whole Foods stock has increased 900% !

Price 10/12/12 - $96.40 per share



Apple Inc. the America gadget giant is considered by some to be the most undervalued in the world,
Three days after Obama took office, Apple's stock was worth

Price 01/23/09 - $88.36 per share

Today, 4 years later Apple shares have increase nearly 700%

Price 10/12/2012 - $629.71



Caterpillar, sell engines, machines and construction components worldwide.
Three days after Obama took office, a share of Caterpillar went for,

Price 01/23/09 - $35.66

Less than 4 years later, Caterpillar shares have increased 115%

Price 10/12/12 - $82.82



IBM, is the software giant that determines the function of operating systems worldwide.
Three days after Obama came into office, a shares of IBM were at

Price 01/23/09 - $89.49

Today less than, 4 years later, IBM shares have 120%

Price 10/12/12 - $207.80


You can feel free to look at any stock and see how America's economy has faired under Obama's
presidency.

Much better than his detractors would have you think...
edit on 12-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
You're right, the stock market has done well in the past couple years. The DOW has fully recovered from the '08 shock.

The problem, is that these profits are primarily going into the hands of the wealthy. A huge proportion of income growth in America has gone to millionaires under Obama.


In reality, the executive gets way too much blame/credit for the economy. For example, the economic growth under Clinton had much more to do with a tech revolution and internet boom than anything Clinton did. And similarly, the economy under Obama is more a product of private sector business activity than government policy.

The question for Obama's economic grade, is not as much about stock prices, income, or even unemployment. It is whether or not the added activity based on stimulous/bailout spending was worth the added debt. Which I think it is, considering that we could have seen a major depression without.

Where would we be today, without these government economic programs?
edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: comma misuse



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
You're right, the stock market has done well in the past couple years. The DOW has fully recovered from the '08 shock.

The problem, is that these profits are primarily going into the hands of the wealthy. A huge proportion of income growth in America has gone to millionaires under Obama.


In reality, the executive gets way too much blame/credit for the economy. For example, the economic growth under Clinton had much more to do with a tech revolution and internet boom than anything Clinton did. And similarly, the economy under Obama is more a product of private sector business activity than government policy.

The question for Obama's economic grade, is not as much about stock prices, income, or even unemployment. It is whether or not the added activity based on stimulous/bailout spending was worth the added debt. Which I think, it is, considering that we could have seen a major depression without.

Where would we be today, without these government economic programs?


My goal here is to show that Obama is not an enemy of business outside of the realm of hyperbolic statements.

We all see how easy it is to blame the slow economy on Obama, but it is not so easy to gauge what his

policies have done to impact economic activity. Here are real before and after data that have been

subject to the Obama policies.
edit on 12-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
PS

Where are you Obama detractors???

Come and share your opinion!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


I agree. His first term economic policies that many question are the result of extreme circumstance.

He shouldn't be seen as a detriment to business.

I think that the American economy 2012-16 will do pretty well regardless of who wins the election. And because of this, Obama's economic policies will ultimately be seen as successful.
edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by campanionator
 


I agree. His first term economic policies that many question are the result of extreme circumstance.

He shouldn't be seen as a detriment to business.

I think that the American economy 2012-16 will do pretty well regardless of who wins the election. And because of this, Obama's economic policies will ultimately be seen as successful.
edit on 10/12/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)


In the political world it is easy to forget where we have come from... This thread is a good example
of our political world, because as you will see, his detractors will pretend they did not see this positive
information.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Obama vilifies the rich and yet they thrive under his administration.
Well spotted.
He's obviously working to help the rich become richer and the poor get poorer.
Good job!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   


The problem, is that these profits are primarily going into the hands of the wealthy. A huge proportion of income growth in America has gone to millionaires under Obama


And you think Romney would reverse this?!



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


Did I say that? I only said it was a problem. Do you disagree?

It's a contentious issue, not really clear cut. Arguments could be made that Obama's economic policies have helped or hurt, the verdict really depends on how the next few years play out.

And my posts were mostly pro-Obama.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


Stability is good for economy, there is no way around this simple basic fact. We are talking about a rotation of seats of fundamentally the same people that claim to have divergent views but in general agree in most everything but the details.

For a president to be detrimental to the economy he would have to be working real hard to mess it up, having said that a president that does nothing is better to the economy that one that wishes to make drastic changes (even if beneficial, their effect would have effects in the future). This is one reason why this duopoly that exist in US politics works, because they (those running the parties, not the runners) can in some aspects plan ahead and make it all seem sustainable.

This is why there is a swelling of cries for a third party as to break this pattern, a new player would give the system not only a chock but force adaptations and changes that to some degree would expose and remove past undue influences...



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't see Obama doing anything for me except reading off a teleprompter.

The economy will only get better is to lower taxes, so we can spend more to create a boost. That won't happen because there too many part-time job s or lack of, minimum paying wages with outrages tax deductings.

Whatever, my life is doomed.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


By providing these examples, you are only showing that Obama's policies have not been detrimental to these specific companies. A better way to look at it would be at the NYSE as a whole, and GDP as a whole.

www.forecast-chart.com...

The above link shows that over the course of the last four years -- not including this year -- we haven't come out of the hole that the NYSE was in at the end of 2008. Progress has been made, yes, but not a complete recovery.

useconomy.about.com...

This link shows that we have only had positive growth in 2010 and 2011 for our economy as a whole. 2012 is not included.

Taking your examples and putting them together with the above information, it is possible to make some educated guesses about what is actually happening with our economy. Such tremendous growth for companies as large as Starbucks, Apple, IBM, etc., is coming at a price. If every business was experiencing the same type of growth, we would have no problems with jobs, high unemployment, availability of benefits, revenue for FedGov, etc.

The wealth of our nation is being concentrated in these larger corporations, with the smaller, but more vital businesses falling to the wayside. While it may seem to be a Utopia for some to have an Apple store in every city and small town- employing a brigade of Geniuses to make our lives better- it would not make our economy any more viable for the future. The real proof of a sound economic policy would be for a strong percentage of small businesses to see the type of fiscal performance shown by your examples.

Hence, Romney's plan to encourage small business.

Do I agree with Romney? I think some of his points have merit, but he is definitely not my ideal candidate.

Do I agree with Obama? No. And that goes for the Democrat Party as well.
I think that only I can make the best decisions about what to do with my income. I give to two charities on a monthly basis, and a third charity on an annual basis. Through these organizations, I directly have an impact on my local economy (city and county) and then my state economy. If I had a higher percentage of my income available to me, and not taken by FedGov, I would be able to do more for my local economy. To help explain myself better, I contribute financially to job training and education for disadvantaged and troubled teens. I also contribute my time to these organizations. I can't give them much time, because I work too much.

I don't need FedGov taking my money and giving it to the people they want to, when I can eliminate the middle man and have a lasting impact on the people in the city where I live. Helping these kids to not only figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but also giving them the skills they would need to thrive, is better than just giving them some cash to get by.

TL;DR - If a strong percentage of corporations in America were experiencing similar growth, then YES, Obama's policies are good for business.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by originaldraagyn
reply to post by campanionator
 


By providing these examples, you are only showing that Obama's policies have not been detrimental to these specific companies. A better way to look at it would be at the NYSE as a whole, and GDP as a whole.

www.forecast-chart.com...

The above link shows that over the course of the last four years -- not including this year -- we haven't come out of the hole that the NYSE was in at the end of 2008. Progress has been made, yes, but not a complete recovery.

useconomy.about.com...

This link shows that we have only had positive growth in 2010 and 2011 for our economy as a whole. 2012 is not included.

Taking your examples and putting them together with the above information, it is possible to make some educated guesses about what is actually happening with our economy. Such tremendous growth for companies as large as Starbucks, Apple, IBM, etc., is coming at a price. If every business was experiencing the same type of growth, we would have no problems with jobs, high unemployment, availability of benefits, revenue for FedGov, etc.

The wealth of our nation is being concentrated in these larger corporations, with the smaller, but more vital businesses falling to the wayside. While it may seem to be a Utopia for some to have an Apple store in every city and small town- employing a brigade of Geniuses to make our lives better- it would not make our economy any more viable for the future. The real proof of a sound economic policy would be for a strong percentage of small businesses to see the type of fiscal performance shown by your examples.

Hence, Romney's plan to encourage small business.

Do I agree with Romney? I think some of his points have merit, but he is definitely not my ideal candidate.

Do I agree with Obama? No. And that goes for the Democrat Party as well.
I think that only I can make the best decisions about what to do with my income. I give to two charities on a monthly basis, and a third charity on an annual basis. Through these organizations, I directly have an impact on my local economy (city and county) and then my state economy. If I had a higher percentage of my income available to me, and not taken by FedGov, I would be able to do more for my local economy. To help explain myself better, I contribute financially to job training and education for disadvantaged and troubled teens. I also contribute my time to these organizations. I can't give them much time, because I work too much.

I don't need FedGov taking my money and giving it to the people they want to, when I can eliminate the middle man and have a lasting impact on the people in the city where I live. Helping these kids to not only figure out what they want to be when they grow up, but also giving them the skills they would need to thrive, is better than just giving them some cash to get by.

TL;DR - If a strong percentage of corporations in America were experiencing similar growth, then YES, Obama's policies are good for business.





I just picked five companies that came to mind...

Anyone care to pick five more and see if we can repeat these results?



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 


The obvious example for a losing company related to Obama's policy would be Solyndra.

This is a major point for the opposition. I, however, remain in favor for government policy promoting the expansion of green energy.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by campanionator
 


The obvious example for a losing company related to Obama's policy would be Solyndra.

This is a major point for the opposition. I, however, remain in favor for government policy promoting the expansion of green energy.



I certainly think that was a debacle, but I am speaking to element who say this economy gets worse and
worse despite positive information. One or even several missteps is not the same as abject failure.

Obama's economy has been fertile enough to allow some stock to gain 500% more value in under four years.
If Obama was the worst, one would think stocks would have lost value... The opposite is true,
stocks have gained since January 23, 2009 in a big way.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   
How much do dead Pakistanis, Afghans, Yemeni, Libyans, Iraqis and Somalis think he's worth? What do you think their families think he's good for?

Since we're asking about value and worth.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


Obama had nothing to do with Solyndra in the first place, and what happened wasn't even Solyndra's fault. The Chinese developed a much cheaper way to produce the same type of solar panel and every solar panel producer suffered for it, not just Solyndra. Solyndra was a good investment by the government at the time that it was invested in (under Bush).

RE: The OP, he is right... Obama's policies have been good, really good for big business. Most large corporations have had record profits the past two years and this TransPacific Partnership deal he's got in the works will be insane profits and that is one of the major reasons he has lost Left wingers like me. He's not a socialist, he's a capitalist, a corporatist. Sure he talks about a putting a tiny tax increase on those that make over a million dollars/year, but that doesn't get to the root of our problems, he talks about closing loop-holes... that's an easy talking point because it will never happen. Anyone with any letter after their name can easily blame anyone else for preventing loopholes from being closed.

It is hilarious to me to hear about these CEOs whine about how he's bad for the economy and we are all doomed if he gets another 4 years. It is hilarious to me to hear right wingers tilting about his spending... when the reality is he's done everything right for our Capitalism worship and American Imperialism, they have flourished under Obama. The Right should be singing his praises.
edit on 13-10-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
There are lots of factors in the mix here. There's plenty of blame to be spread around, going back, presidentially speaking, at least as far as Woodrow Wilson (brought us the Fed and Mother's Day), probably farther. Of course, at the same time we have to blame Congress, big business, the banks and money manipulaters, lobbyists, an ignorant public, and plain old ordinary greed.

But I'm not telling y'all anything new.


I think Obama could have sat and done absolutely nothing economically and the market would have still gone up.
The money guys, who drive such things, like to make more money. They're not going to leave the market down for too long.

Of course, bombing people seems to be good for business, too...



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Isn't Moody's warning us of a downgrade this year?

www.abcnews.go.com...

Our credit rating dropped last year, too. I would hate to say he's good for the economy right now, especially since we have another fiscal cliff looming at the end of the year when the Bush tax cuts expire. If he's reelected for president then there's no excuse for him if we enter another recession.



posted on Oct, 13 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I dont think any correct thinking individual would confuse the stock market with the health of the economy.

The stock market hasn't been pinned to reality since the tech boom/bubble/bust and can no longer be a thermometer, barometer, compass, crystal ball...whatever.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join