wifeisafurd said:
On Obama:
Despite the view he was either horrible at managing the economy or great, the story is far more nuanced:
The stimulus package probably was not very effective because it was designed and implemented poorly, too small, and likely may have had a chilling effect on using stimulus plans in the future. That said, maintaining the FED policies like QE that eventually worked. His bailout of the auto industry worked. His use of defect spending during a recession (despite some rants to the contrary) stimulated the economy. Carbon emissions trading also worked. A lot of his regulations killed jobs and companies, and a lot of them created new industries. He inherited a mess, but at some point he had to own the economy, and that economy was slow, but steady improvement. We have no stimulated the economy with a large tax cut and more deficit spending. The economy may be overheated as feared by the FED and inflation may result (ironically, the objective of QE). We also have a trade war. We will see how it all turns out.
The folks in this board only see things in black and white, and often there are shades of grey. They need to be called on it. I take my leave.
This comports with my view of how Obama handled the economy (and the crisis he inherited): not perfect, but okay. Good enough to avert total disaster and allow a recovery. Republicans fought him on some things he wanted to do. Some moderate Democrats did too. For that reason I'm not entirely on board with the idea that "Obama had total control and could have gotten whatever he wanted!" It should go without saying that someone like Joe Lieberman was not totally on board with the Obama agenda, despite also being a Democrat.