Subscribe to Money Morning get daily headlines subscribe now! Money Morning Private Briefing today's private briefing Access Your Profit Alerts

Obamanomics: What You Can Expect if President Obama Wins the Election

Now that we are left with a two-horse race for president, the markets are going to begin to handicap the November results.

However, when the markets begin to handicap the race it will be about a lot more than just picking the eventual winner.

Instead, everything will revolve around the policies and consequences that come along with the winner.

The difference in approach promises to be stark with "Obamanomics" on the left and "Romneynomics" on the right.

Each one comes with its own set of consequences, though.

Today I'm going to look at "Obamanomics II," or the policies we will get if President Obama is re-elected.

But those on the left shouldn't despair…In my next piece, it's Romney's turn.

As for the horserace itself, it's too close to call, with neither side having much chance of winning a big victory.

President Obama Has the Edge

Even still at the moment, President Obama appears to be ahead. Apart from his modest lead in the polls, my former home state of Virginia appears to be swinging definitively toward the Democrats.

Yes, Republican Bob McDonnell did win the Virginia governorship handily in 2009, but he was a very good candidate. Moreover, turnout in gubernatorial elections is normally low. Thus I believe the latest polls showing Obama with a 7% lead in Virginia are accurate, and without Virginia Romney has a very difficult path to the presidency.

If we believe the presidential election will be close, then it follows that Congress and the Senate elections must be close, too.

If Obama wins in November, the most likely outcome must be that the Democrats will hang on to the Senate, while the Republican House majority survives, albeit much smaller than at present.

With this combination, the president's more extreme wishes (or those of his team) will be restrained. But as a newly re-elected figure he will nevertheless have more power to get what he wants than he does currently.

Whatever the congressional numbers may be, the president's first task will be to face the "fiscal cliff" of January 2013, when the Bush tax cuts and temporary payroll tax cuts expire and automatic spending "sequestration" comes into effect.

This problem will be faced by the "lame-duck" current Congress in November and December, but it's likely the election results will heavily influence what it does.

President Obama has made several attempts to raise taxes on the rich, and re-election would allow him to succeed. As well as allowing most of the Bush tax cuts to expire, it's likely a re-elected Obama will close some of the major tax loopholes – for home mortgage interest, charitable deductions and state and local taxes – at least for the rich, probably defined as those with an income over $500,000.

However, he probably won't engage in a Francois Hollande-style attempt to raise the top rate of tax to 75% — that would yield no extra revenue and would make it more difficult for him to do other things he wants.

On healthcare, re-election will allow Obama to adjust Obamacare to reflect his own priorities more closely. If the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate (whereby individuals must purchase health insurance) then he will probably extend Medicaid up the income scale, so that middle-income people can take advantage of the program.

Spiraling healthcare costs will be controlled by price restrictions on reimbursements to healthcare providers.

In four years' time, more people will likely be covered by health insurance, but healthcare quality will decline as increasing numbers of providers refuse to accept patients from the expanded Medicaid.

Obamanomics and the U.S. Economy

From the U.S. economy's point of view, the most worrying feature of President Obama's re-election is the free rein it will give to the regulators. With a full set of regulators in place, and President Obama not facing re-election, the more damaging regulatory schemes will have a full four years to be implemented.

Possible hazards include a shut-down of fracking, tight regulation of carbon emissions that will force increased use of uneconomic green technologies, further detailed restrictions on non-discriminatory hiring that would prevent employers from taking criminal records and past employment history into account, and tightly-directed bank lending rules restricting availability of capital for small business.

The precise nature of regulatory restrictions in 2013-17 is unknown, but their general direction and seriousness is certain.

There is some evidence that the entire decline in U.S. productivity growth after 1973 is due to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulators around 1970. Enthusiastic regulators given full rein could well cripple U.S. competitiveness for decades to come.

On the monetary front, President Obama's re-election will mean Ben Bernanke and his "soft money" acolytes will be given full rein.

Either Bernanke will be re-appointed in January 2014 or one of his acolytes like Fed Vice-chairman Janet Yellen will succeed him.

Interest rates will remain at near zero-levels until late 2014, while inflation will get out of control. For investors, stocks will be good but commodities, oil and gold will be even better, with EPA restrictions limiting prospects for new oil supplies.

Overall, the U.S. economy will be in a very different place in January 2017 than it was in 2009, with the state representing a much larger share in output and exercising considerable control over the rest.

But that's what Americans would have voted for, twice.

Related Articles and News:

Join the conversation. Click here to jump to comments…

  1. Gerry | May 8, 2012

    Good Morning
    I am confused–why would the healthcare providers not give care to individuals with medicaid?
    The reimbursment is much higher than it is in Canada –and in Canada there is no problem in providing care –from the provider perspective .
    It is rationed on the provider side [in Canada] ,however.If Medicaid is expanded, I would predict the providers will be tripping over themselves trying to serve that new market.
    A Canadian perspective.

    • Bubba | May 8, 2012

      Economics. If you lose money seeing patients, like you do with Medicaid, you can not make it up in volume. Duh! Doctors have employees, and if he can not pay them, then they either work for a hospital, or the government. If you like your county or charity hospital, then your expectations will not be too high. If you want personalized care, and someone you can call when you are sick, too bad!
      By the way, the Canadians cap what doctors can make, so many work about 4 months per year, then go to private clinics to take care of those with $$$. That is why it takes over 6 months to see an Orthopedic doctor in Canada, unless the bone is sticking out of your leg/arm… To get an MRI or CT Scan,it will take another 6 months, then another 6 months to return to see your Orthopedic doctor. So, 18 months after an injury, say an ACL injury, you will see your doctor about surgery, which could be another 6 months or more. On the bright side, by that time, you will probably have learned to "deal with" your injury, though you probably wont be able to ski or play softball…
      Unfortunately, there will not be enough doctors to see patients, so you will probably get to see a nurse practitioner. Mistakes and errors will become the norm and acceptable, and the lawyers will get more work. And forget about tort reform. Most lawyers are democrats, and give a lot of money to same.
      So the gap between those that have and have not will only widen!
      So watch out for those doctors tripping over themselves to find a way out. If you get hurt, you might find yourself in a pickle.

    • Jodi | May 8, 2012

      Patients just can't get treatment! They come here because the waiting list is too long. If I am 70 yrs old and need a valve surgery I have to wait about 2 years to have that surgery, whereas in the USA I can have it immediately if medically necessary! Where do you want to live??

    • Robert in Canada | May 8, 2012

      I don't know how much experience Gerry has had with the medical system in Canada, but the wait time to see a specialist is 3 to 8 months.

      The wait time to get 'non-essential' surgery such as knee, back, or hip is 2 to 3 years, meanwhile you suffer in pain and misery. The government determines what is non-essential – generally it's anything that won't kill you within a few days.

      Hospitals in Canada put patients in hallways for many days while waiting for a real bed to open up. Many patients never get into a real hospital bed, they spend 4 or 5 days in a hallway bed then go home.

      • ROBERT CHOWN | August 21, 2012

        reply from robert in vancouver, bc, canada
        AUGUST 2012.
        HOW BAD IS THIS?

  2. H Craig Bradley | May 8, 2012


    Americans have a chance to correct their mistake made back in election 2008. We could "man-up", admit our mistake and correct it this coming Nov. However, if American voters reelect incumbent Barack Obama, it will be NO MISTAKE this time.

    So, the next president will be heavily influenced by what the Republican party does. Why? Because whoever can win a big piece of the HIspanic vote will likely win the election. If Mitt Romney chooses a W.A.S.P. running mate such as Senator Portman of Ohio, then he will probably lose the election. Minorities will not vote for two more white, rich, East Coast Republicans. Nada.

    • Riley Bratton | May 8, 2012

      "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

  3. Jack | May 8, 2012

    You might be right, but I don't think it will be quite as extreme as you state. If you remember, There have been bad mistakes in the drilling business, in mining, and in Plant construction over the last four years. Each event cost men their lives. Meanwhile American companys are sitting on record amounts of profit. That does not come from too much regulation. It comes from cutiing corners and ignoring safety concerns. I have been in heavy industry for thirty years and I know how things work. I have seen companys spend many thousands of dollars in court rather than pay a few thousand in fines for obvious violations of federal safety rules and seen managers turn their back on serious safety violations rather than address them. Yes, some of the rules go overboard sometimes, but where my life, and the lives of my co-workers are concerned I don't mind the excess.
    Reading Karims book about the water and the air in many emerging markets, along with Jim Rogers comments about what he saw in his travels, EPA regs suit me just fine. Clean air and water are already in short supply around here compared to ten years ago.
    Just my opinion and each is certainly entitled to their own.

    • Richard | May 8, 2012

      Jack, clean water may be in short supply in your immediate area but across the nation it is the best it has ever been. Sure, that is possibly somewhat due to the EPA but when regulations of any industry become onerous we all pay the price.
      Clearly this administration has increased regulations significantly to many industries and we are all poorer for the decisions of those foolish bureaucrats.

      • snoway | August 17, 2012


    • George | May 8, 2012

      WOW!! I seriously wonder what heavy industry you are/were in. To say record profits comes from cutting corners and ignoring safety rules is beyond ignorance. I think your a plant playing games but we will never know the truth. I have been in the Oil and Gas Exploration business since 1979 and have never met a legitimate Oilman that was willing to risk the lives of his men. I have never met anyone in this business that did not take safety serious, do you think these "Evil" people you know and have seen so much of wether in the field or in court do not have families as well. But are so evil and greedy that they would risk the lives of their families, friends and fellow Americans.
      The information you have senor is worth millions maybe billions!! Are you aware the EPA has been forced to drop most if not all the fracing suits based on tainting freshwater supplies? Did you attend any of the Hearings where your beloved EPA could NOT even give ONE Factual Answer! After spending Billions of Taxpayer money and costing each company in each industry 10's to 100's of millions in legal fees BUT thats OK!!???
      You need to go to the EPA NOW! and Cash In!!
      As for me I know without any hesitation that the EPA has damaged the USA beyond belief.
      I recognize this was a total waste of my time but if you would put the pipe or obama's koolaid down for a few hours and research Facts not hearsay as the EPA has become so prone to do.
      I imagine he is your hero but how do you continue to justify the actions of Al Armendariz the Intellectual Idiot from Region 6 that just resigned. You know he drank to much of the Koolaid!
      Be Careful man put it away for a while it taste good but will get you in the end. Lies never work like you think.

    • Brian | May 13, 2012

      Jack I too have seen the same things you posted about. I remember when lake Erie was toxic . All the rules and regulations we have now came about because of abuse and companys trying to get around said rules and regs.

  4. Tom P. | May 8, 2012

    I tend to believe your premises but am unclear as to how you derived your conclusions.

    For example, you state, "In four years' time, more people will likely be covered by health insurance, but healthcare quality will decline as increasing numbers of providers refuse to accept patients from the expanded Medicaid. " If more insurance providers refuse to accept patients from the expanded Medicaid, why do you think the quality of healthcare will decline? Wouldn't the ones still receiving healthcare from Medicaid still be provided with quality? And for the ones that are declined by insurance providers, won't they have an alternative under the new Healthcare reform? Why will that alternative yield lesser quality healthcare?

    Concerning regulations, are you implying that regulations are not needed or that the current regulations are enough or that the new regulations are bound to be without thought for their consequences which are gauranteed to be bad for Americans? Please provide me with a few more details of your thought process.

    Concerning the FED and Bernanke, do you believe their deleveraging strategy of increasing money in the system and holding interest rates low is a bad strategy?

    Please provide me with a little more logic supporting your conclusions so that I might better understand your thinking.



    • Seabisquit | May 8, 2012

      To your questions
      1 – Providers refusing medicaid. We have a daughter with disabilities who qualifies for medicaid. We pay the full amount for coverage under my employer first because I do not think the government needs to and second because when I was unemployed we found it difficult to find someone who would take her and the quality of care was very poor compared to the doctors available under our private insurance. I am not wondering why; just noting that.
      2 – Regulation not needed? We are a small credit union. The Frank Dodd reform bill does not address the cause of the 2008 liquidity crisis or the flaws resulting in the housing bubble. It does cause us to have to hire a compliance manager to make sure we are meeting all the 600 plus pages and all the rules developed from it. The likely outcome is we will pursue mergers with two or 3 other credit unions to get to the size so that we can manage the expenses the greater regulatory oversight have given us.
      3 – The Fed – After the initial impact of these extreme low rates they serve as a liquidity trap. Look that up on the net as there are several very sound discussions of that. As a financial institution we are forced to buy securities yielding less than 1.5% and put on loans at 1.99% to 3.99%. What do yuo think will happens to financial institution when rates take off and funding/deposit costs cost more than the loans or securities. I do not thank the Fed for these extreme rates.

  5. Tommy Wright | May 8, 2012

    Unless something is done to prevent all elected officials from being able to treat themselves as "elite", nothing will change. They will continue to rob and plunder the bank. (aka, the government) leaving the little guy to struggle with the carnage left behind. Insider trading is illegal, why hasn't some of those in congress that are known to have benefited from this practice, been put in jail? Or better yet, kicked out of office.
    Why do these crooks continue to be elected? If the electorate (voters) don't wake up to the fact that they are the only answer to the problem, then god help us. WE WILL GET THE RESULTS WE DESERVE.

    • Lorene | May 8, 2012

      Why don't you run for President? All we want is to earn our worth. I work in a job getting paid less than what my white male and female counterpartners make. Same education and experience or more.

      Can you resolve this problem? We need a President with a heart, not a flip flopper who only want to be president to satisfy his ego and make his bank account bigger.

  6. CP | May 8, 2012

    You are missing the point. Obama isn't even eligible to be President. Case closed!!

    • Lorene | May 8, 2012

      Case open. You run for president

      • Jarome | August 11, 2012

        Lorene, maybe you suck at your job, stop playing the race card. Im black and I make way more than any of the white folk I work with.

        Hate coloreds like you that use the excuse of inequality as your reasoning for getting paid less. Maybe the white folk you work with are just better at their jobs.

  7. Riley Bratton | May 8, 2012

    Mr. Hutchinson, you tend to portray President Obama as some type of "leftist radical" that is biding his time to foist "bigger government" on us after his re-election. If he is such, he certainly has done a remarkable job concealing this agenda during his first term. If I had supported him because he was such a "leftist", I would be VERY DISAPPOINTED! Give President Obama some credit for keeping our economy from heading the direction that a number of the European countries did after the "Great Recession" became entrenched during the latter months of a Republican presidency. Remarkably, the Republican Party faithful suddenly caught "anti-deficit fever" after voting for the record setting deficits they so fervently supported during the eight years of his predecessor. Waging two wars, record-setting trade deficits with China, giving tax credits to corporations that exported our jobs abroad, and cutting taxes on the wealthiest of our citizens depleted a surplus built during the last years of President Clinton's administration and helped to add trillions to our National Debt. The Republican motivation to become such fiscal conservatives lay more in the realm of a desire to ensure that President Obama would be a one-term president rather than wanting to see our Nation prosper again. Their commitment to a signed pledge with one individual took precedent over what was best for the overall well-being of 99% of our citizens. Had the President followed what the Republicans wanted him to adhere to during his first term, we would be experiencing 25% unemployment while the sacred 1% would be shielded from any attempt to implement the "Buffet Rule".

    • Brian | May 8, 2012

      Riley, what kind of delusional causing drugs are you taking, dude? First, it wasn't Clinton who brought that last and no doubt never to be seen again federal surplus but a Republican Congress. Clinton had no real choice but to sign the budgets presented to him. Second, the deficit spending of the 8 Bush years, the last two of which were under a Democratic Congress, are dwarfed in comparison to Obama's 3 1/2 years. Third, the results of Obama's stimulus (which the Budget Office called a failure) and the other steps this President has taken didn't have any positive effect on this economic recovery and unemployment is much higher in real terms than what the Obama propaganda machine puts out. Today, we have more people on Food Stamps than at any time in our history, costs of living has escalated in the past 3 1/2 years, all while the Dems haven't produced a single budget. Fourth, the only reason we didn't go the way of Greece is because we have a bigger printing press than they had. But flooding the market with cheap dollars is like taking slow poison – eventually it will kill you. Finally, it's been the Liberal policies over the past 70 years that have brought us to the brink of national ruin because for all their "good intentions" that's where Liberal policies lead. Tax cuts for the rich is the only whine the Left can drink, but not a well reasoned one since taxing the rich at even much higher rates will not close the deficit gap but may indeed harm our economy. No, what burst the bubble was the Left's false ideal of "fairness" and that every person should own a home whether they could afford one or not. Understandably you're very dissappointed that Obama hasn't been extreme enough for Progressives – that's simply because there's this thing in constitutional powers called checks and balances. If Obama is reelected, God forbid, I'm sure you'll be happy by his abuse of powers has he pushes the agenda you want.

      • Riley Bratton | May 8, 2012

        Brian, my drugs aren't nearly as strong as what you are smoking. You live in the "Republican Bubble" that does not allow facts to filter through that impermeable membrane you call a brain. Perhaps you will take the time to read Professor Paul Krugman's op-ed article entitled "Plutocracy, Paralysis, Perplexity" @ that elucidates "the only whine"[sic] to which you allude as the only drink the "Left" enjoys. Krugman, that leftist, liberal, Nobel Prize-winning Keynesian economist posits that "political polarization has closely tracked income inequality, and there’s every reason to believe that the relationship is causal. Specifically, money buys power, and the increasing wealth of a tiny minority has effectively bought the allegiance of one of our two major political parties, in the process destroying any prospect for cooperation." To wade more deeply into the abyss of the drugs I am on, you should read and try to comprehend Krugman's latest masterpiece entitled END THIS DEPRESSION NOW!

    • Link | May 8, 2012

      We actually are at 25% unemployment, and don't worry, the meltdownyou are describing was only postponed. If I run up my credit card to double my income (and the government doesnt tax itself), I can live really well for the period that my creditors allow me to be stupid.

    • Elaine | May 8, 2012

      You're absolutely right!!!! How can they now say they're so conservative. What did happen to the surplus left by the Clinton administration? And who took it where?

    • nik | May 8, 2012

      dick cheney,'deficits don't matter.' he was a republican vp. the republicans were conveniently silent.

  8. Jill | May 8, 2012

    If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you weren't a racist then you need to vote agianst him in 2012 to prove you're not an idiot.

    • Riley Bratton | May 8, 2012

      Jill, I always rely on a plentiful supply of idiots like you to negate the need for me to prove my idiocy. At least I can spell "AGAINST".

    • Elaine | May 8, 2012

      Money is green, not racist!!!!! The blind who lead the blind, they all fall into a ditch!!!!

    • Elaine | May 8, 2012

      And what is the value of the dollar around the globe anyway?

    • val | May 8, 2012

      Can't make it any clearer than that .

    • Erin van Schendel | May 8, 2012

      Dear Jill….Bless you.

    • Tony | May 8, 2012

      Didn't I read that line somewhere else already. I guess you're on a payroll.

  9. ulfmeyn | May 8, 2012

    what about positive consequences of obama's policies
    f. ex job creation?

    • mark stemmer | May 8, 2012

      Hello Guys, I 'm new at this, responding to your qustions regarding our future here in the U.S.A. if or if not Obama is reelected. First thing is, my opion is Pres. Obama will win hands down. Romney wins, there will be no big change. With all are issues so LARGE and MANY, and we are not willing to sacrafice for the good of all. We will crash and burn as a nation!!! Look at peoples attitudes with entitlement view of live " It is my RIGHT " And most of all we our NOT a Christian nation that we were years ago. We are more secular and afraid to stand up to others with oppossing opions regarding how God plays #1 in our lives and of our nation's. We are to concerned with P/C politically correctness. We as a nation full of rules and regulations to police what is right, or regulate morality. It dosn't work!!! We must follow the GOLDEN RULE, Love God with your whole heart ,mind, and soul, and LOVE they nieghbor as they self. That is a TALL order by God and a HARD one to follow. It is to be self sacraficing for others, and do what is right without the LAW of the land to police us. Why do politicians SALE there souls so quickly, once they get in office. Look at all the temptations that come at them from all angels as soon as they get in office and do we as a nation police them and make them accountable to us after the election. I say NO, we don't and off they go with there own agenda and get bought and payed for the specail interest groups to help them with reelectoin and they listen and respond to the love of MONEY and POWER, and fall into the web of SEX. Have things really change since we don't hold ourselfs to a higher standard. I say we as a nation our losing our idenity as a nation of God!!! We haven't seen anything yet regarding what we are headed for after the Nov. election. We will NEED GOD more than ever, for the years to come.Mark H.B.Calif.

    • Fred Stork | May 8, 2012

      ulfmeyn — what job creation??? you gotta be kidding, or fooling yourself, where do you think the unemployment is now? unemployment rate U3 is at 8%. Rate U3 is number that excludes all that gave up looking for jobs, or underemployed (skill labor working part time for subsistence wages).
      Rate U6, which government will not publish in public media, includes those groups, and stands officially at 15%, and even that is a fraud, numbers are falsified. Go on, their research shows more like 22% general unemployment.
      As for age groups, youth are "enjoying" over 25% unemployment.

  10. James Robinson | May 8, 2012

    "Now that we are left with a two-horse race for president?" Apparently you believe the MSN's version of the truth. The Republican convention has not been held. There is another candidate they're not talking about, Ron Paul, who is racking up delegates, and who recently won a majority of them in Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada. The GOP nomination won't be decided until as they say, the fat lady sings. Don't be so quick to rush to judgement, and please don't be guilty of parroting the MSN's lies.

  11. Mike O. | May 8, 2012

    It seems to me that we keep ignoring the inevitable direction in which we are headed. The economic "revolution" is headed this way. As Shapiro pointed out in "America's Third Revolution" long ago, the public has no objection to business making money but the allowable limits of behavior have changed. Private gain remains a necessary condition of commerce but is no longer a sufficient one. You can like it or not, rail against it or not, the fact is and it's unlikely to change as we move forward that earnings of a job have become basic to personal freedom …. a job is increasingly being seen as and becoming the "most significant property right of our time". These are not new thoughts, these are not ruminations of some radical Marxists but rather projections and discussions that appeared over 25 years ago in books, government reports and academic journals. As Irving Shapiro pointed out: "The objective now should be not just to make individual companies perform better but also to make the whole system work better …."

  12. Chris F. | May 8, 2012

    Mr. Hutchinson please. It's really hard to know where to start here. But just picking something at random: "There is some evidence that the entire decline in U.S. productivity growth after 1973 is due to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulators around 1970." The EPA? There is no evidence for this silly assertion. (Begin sarcasm) I'm sure the Arab Oil embargo had nothing to do with it. (end sarcasm). And just how long did the "decline in U.S. productivity growth" last?

    And then: "Obama will close some of the major tax loopholes – for home mortgage interest, charitable deductions and state and local taxes – at least for the rich, probably defined as those with an income over $500,000. "
    On each point: 1. Home mortgage interest; Why on earth? 2. Charitable deductions; Not a chance. 3. State and local tax deduction; Wasn't it Regan who did away with deductions for state sales taxs? I've never heard Obama say anything like that. 4. $500,000? From where did you pull that number?

    Since I don't get paid for this, I don't have time for more. It doesn't matter what you have to say about "Romneynomics". If Obama does "have the edge", this article is clearly meant to dull the chances for Democrats in the Congress. Without support from the Congress, Obama will accomplish little in his second term and Republicans can again point to his failings.

  13. Brian | May 8, 2012

    What we will know if Obama is reelected is that American's have tragically lost their way due to the dumbing down of America by Liberals for the past 40-50 years. What we will know if Obama is reelected is that the office of the POTUS will never again be the same as Obama will grab more powers for the office bypassing the other branches to drive his agenda. What we will see if Obama is reelected is skyrocketing energy costs that will fundamentally change how we live as the EPA enviro-wackos grab more power – expect gas to be $5.00 a gallon or higher. What we will see if Obama is reelected is a greatly divided nation causing even more riots in the streets than the Occupy movement now as Alinsky style radicalism becomes the Left's endorsed and accepted norm to tear down the free market system in this country to replace it with European-style socialism or worse. What we will see is higher unemployment, less opportunity, and less wealth creation but this will make the gap between rich and poor even wider and shrink the middle class even more. What we will see is even more out of control spending by the government driving our national debt even higher until we follow in the footsteps of Greece. What we'll see if Obama is reelected is less free speech as dissent is controlled by unconstitutional leadership and a continuing lose of our liberty. America will never be the same again in Obama is reelected and there is no upside here unless you are a friend of Obama.

  14. Chumpper | May 8, 2012

    What did the President inherit from GW. The economy was in free fall; he took oath while we were losing 1,000,000 jobs per month, stock market was below 6K involved in 2 wars. Today, we posted the 1st budgetary surplus, unemployment rate at 8.1 percent. Note; Republican governors tried to skew the numbers by laying off teachers, police officers and firefighters. Also the economy is changing requiring more high skilled employees which our school systems are not producing. Folks, if Romney gets elected if you're not a millionaire you're going to catch hell. If you don't like the President because he's black say so don't use code words because you come off as being a coward.

  15. Pinstriper | May 8, 2012

    Regarding job creation, does anybody pay attention to the numbers. Last week, 365,000 people applied for first-time unemployment with an average for the month of 355,000 per WEEK. Jobs created were 115,000 per MONTH. Not only is that a net LOSS of 250,000 jobs for the reporting week. It is a net LOSS of 1.285 Million jobs for the month. Unemployment dropped by 0.1% because over 500,000 unemployed people exhausted unemployment benfits are are considered "out of the workforce".
    Things are not better. Companies are sitting on cash that would be normally be re-invested in capital improvements for growing the business. The cash keeps their net profit from sinking on their quarterly reports which affects their stock price. This is "hunker down" and wait mentality. They would rather pay 35% in corporate income tax on profits than have a 15% deduction for capital improvements from re-investment because 100% of money spent on operating expenses (raw materials, power, salaries, etc) is deducted from their top line of income earned. They have no incentive to hire or spend because business are not growing.

    • Fred Stork | May 8, 2012

      Pinstriper, you forgot to mention that it's this over taxation that's the reason for business exodus from US, not the low chinese wages and currency.
      Chinese wages are increasing rapidly, and productivity is low. Many US businesses would rather move back, but Obama is demanding extra tax if they move back here.

  16. Wayne | May 8, 2012

    Positive consequences of Obama's policies? Job creation?
    We know there are 1.9 million less jobs available than 3 1/2 years ago. Those jobs just disappeared. Also, the number still searching for a job based on drawing unemployment benefits is not the accurate number to use. There are millions who are out of unemployment benefits, thus they aren't counted. The government also adds a subjective number into the mix called seasonal adjustment. So, don't believe the hype.
    For example, the latest advertisement I saw says 4 million jobs were added the past 3 1/2 years. That is either a false premise (which is used a lot then logical, good sounding statements follow), or our country has lost 5.9 million jobs and replaced them with 4 million (lower paying and part-time) jobs.

    Also, yes crap happened under Bush and I fault him for not using his veto power. While the Republican congressmen were no saints, you must know that the unbelievable crap happened when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during Bush's last two years in office. The media conveniently forgot to include that part when every imaginable piece of crap was railroaded through despite the Republicans voting against it.

  17. Phosgood | May 8, 2012

    His re-election will be the final nail in our coal and domestic gas industries. He and his handlers know what he is doing and a complete destruction of our energy base should insure a complete collapse of our economy.
    Still West Virginia supports him completely in spite of themselves, proving they are not racists.

    • Tony | May 8, 2012

      Parotting talking points does not supplant logic and facts. We've gotten used to the chorus of the Right wing and I know Independents are not impressed at all this time around. You need to start making some sense, or else Obama stays, because 2008 is still fresh on everyone's minds; and he wasn't the President then. What's Romney going to do that's different from what Bush was doing? So far, nothing!

  18. Benton H Marder | May 8, 2012

    A while back, in a newspaper in Prague, a letter was published, the subject being the American electorate. We elected a fool as President. We can correct that error. However, if the electorate is composed of fools, it's another matter. Historians will tell the tale. Is it to be that the American voters became utter fools in a relatively short time? I constantly cite Barnum's Law and the W C Fields Corollary. Fools are suckers, and suckers get taken. Look at ourselves. It didn't take very long for the USA to sink to its present level. Our Founding Fathers made a country and government for a virtuous people. We have become, in just about every respect, delusional. We believe so much that just isn't so. We believe what is clean contrary to reason or common sense.

  19. Charles Abelson | May 8, 2012

    You proved you're an idiot.

    • ozzieGeorge | May 9, 2012

      At least Jill was constructive, you're just abuse.

      It's to Martin Hutchinson's credit that he has so many intelligent readers: Wayne, Dan, NumbersDontLie etc — I don't want to single a few out from the lots.

      From the other side of the world "looking in" we see too many dismaying parallels with our own governance here in Down Under.

      We too have a "2011 Wastebook".

      If anyone in the US hasn't caught up with it yet, I urge my American cousins to Google your own Senator Tom Coburn's compilation of what the Obama administration has been wasting money on and how much:

      From the study on "Jordanian student Hookah smoking" (US$55,382) and the study "looking for connections between cocaine and risky sex habits of QUAIL" (US$175,587) to the more serious money of US$1.35million spent on "entrepreneurship-training in Barbados" or the US$17.8million in "foreign aid" to, yes, China…!
      The list gets worse, more ridiculous, more expensive with each item! Read it, Google it!

      In the US you have to ask yourselves what a total of over US$6.5 BILLION OF YOUR MONEY, YOUR TAXPAYERS FUNDS PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT'S COFFERS WERE WASTED ON….


      Who and what mentality for Christ's sakes are happy for this abysmal waste of public money to be repeated again when you go to the polls in November 2012?

      Just think for a moment what a US$6,500,000,000 of utter wastage by the Obama government could have done positively for the economy:

      Help the unfortunates who lost the roof from above their heads in cyclones, or lost their homes in a forced-sale, or give money giving money to start-ups who'd in turn give employment and a source of legitimate income to so many people…

      Socialists are bad money managers. They blow wealth, they don't create wealth, they want you under "their control".

      They blow it on buying "love" and because the poor dont know otherwise, they get a one-off "love me" payment for the vote, and like here in Australia gets blown on gambling etc never banked.

      A more conservative regime knows how to make money grow: sure the rich get a bit richer but the POOR ALSO GET RICHER AND BY THIS GET THEIR LIVES BACK. SLOWLY, SURE, BUT AT LEAST THEY GET THEIR LIVES BACK.


      So my American friends, some advice from a distant bystander: in Down Under it is now too late. We wish we never allowed a socialist government to take hold of Australia. Almost 70% of the people now wants them out but its too late because the 1st thing socialist do when they get in is to tie us up in knots by transfer payment system and legals to support it that it's almost IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THEM OUT UNLESS THERE IS A LARGE REVERSAL IN SENTIMENT.

      When you vote in November 2012 my American cousins, rember the $6.5 BILLION OF UTTER WASTE.

      Do you know of a struggling but honest family foreclosed and out of a home? God only knows where they are today…

      Vote differently in November 2012.

  20. SHEILA DICKSON | May 8, 2012

    What is the motivation for the obstructive actions made by the Republican congressmen?
    Why have they not approve appointments tor the judiciary departments as well as to other
    important governmental departments?
    Why have these same congressmen displayed disrespect and contempt for President Obama
    even before he passed any law or changed any policy.
    Why have they pledge loyalty to Norquist's demands?
    Why does the ALEC organization write legislation for these parasitic congressmen?
    Why can they not make the distinction between fact and fallacy.
    Why would they rather see the destruction of this country than to see the success of
    President Obama.

  21. Dan | May 8, 2012

    Why do you think that health care will deteriorate when most of the developed countries around the world have some form of universal health care and a majority of them have longer life expectancies than we have here in the USA? Yes, even Canada has a longer life expectancy than we have!
    We are fools controlled by the big pharmeceutical companies into thinking that our medical industry is interested in healing us or keeping us healthy. As long as profit is the number one priority in the medical industry cures will never be forthcoming.
    The American Cancer Society is a Billion Dollar non-profit that is always rated one of the worst regarding how they spend that money.
    We know that fire departments and police departments are not supposed to be profit motivated but why can't we see that health care should fall into the same category?

  22. NumbersDontLie | May 8, 2012

    You crack me up, Riley Bratton. The "Clinton surplus" you mention was with a Republican Congress. Congress makes the budget, remember? We are still waging two wars, have huge deficits with China, give tax credits to corporations, and all of the "Bush tax cuts" were kept by Obama. Obama has added more to the trillion dollar debt than in President in history with only four years of "experience" under his belt. (Who would like to see what he can "accomplish" with four more years?!?) Obama has accomplished very few of his 2008 campaign promises. Blame others if you want, but it's a leaders fault when his goals are not met.

    One more thing, unemployment is 25% (well 22% anyhow…I'm rounding up, haha) if you calculate unemployment the way it used to be calculated. Work force participation is at a generational low. Another Obama failure.

    Implement the Buffet Rule, the rich folks with the smart advisers will shield their income. Trust me. I am willing to pay more taxes, but please stop the spending too! I think many rich folks would pay more taxes too, but they do not wish to throw their money to the wind, i.e. the irresponsible federal government. Trim military spending, trim education spending, reform SS and MC, and shutdown some of the ridiculous bureaucracy. That would be change I could believe in!

    Obama has been horrible. Romney might not be much better, but at least he's not a known horrible. How's that for a ringing endorsement! LOL

    • Riley Bratton | May 8, 2012

      “NumbersDontLie”, I cannot “crack” you up! You’re puffing on the same stuff that Brian is on. Do some more objective reading on Congress during the Clinton years without relying on such a cheap drug. As Whitney responded to Dianne Sawyer (when the latter asked if Houston was on or used crack), “Crack is whack!” Whitney retorted. By the way, “figures don’t lie but liars do figure.”

  23. James Nelson | May 8, 2012

    It's NOT a 2 horse race. Ron Paul is winning delegates. Dr Paul swept the delegates in mass, Romney's home state. Dr Paul has won most of the delegates in NV, IA, MN, RI…and this race is FAR from over. Ron Paul has enough delegates to go to the GOP National Convention and he WILL be there.

    Oh and one last note? Remember how stupid the Chicago Tribune looked on November 3, 1948 when they announced Dewey defeated Truman? Just saying…

  24. June | May 8, 2012

    I hope you address some of the questions asked in the comments. For me, job creation is sustained jobs which add to the GNP not jobs created to keep people working but not producing so have not seen job creation. I have friends and business associates in Canada. When a major health issue comes into their lives, the ones who can afford it come to the US for treatment. They are now looking for a different place to go when we get Obamacare. Health care deteriorates when health providers cannot make a profit or even a good living providing care at the same time they can be sued and the bestr alternative is to settle rather than fight because the cost of legal fees are so high.
    The enormous increase in people on disability and welfare and unemployment and a myriad of other government payroll or handouts does nothing to increase the stability nor the growth of economic reality in the US.
    For those who keep asking about Bush's policies, please remember that it was a Democratic Congress that existed during his term in office, not a Repulbican one. Also, please remember how Popular (LOL) Bush was and how excite Congress was to do anything he asked.

  25. SHEILA DICKSON | May 8, 2012

    I guess my initial comment had too many poignant questions to be posted.
    Did I just challenge the propaganda machine on the RIGHT? OOPs there
    goes another question.

    P. S. regulators saved Lake Michigan, and Lake Erie. Remember when there
    was so much smog in L. A. you could not make out that an horizon existed even
    in the middle of the day.

    • Fred Stork | May 8, 2012

      Sheila — I agree with you, altho i am not extreme environmentalist, esp. after i found out the whole carbon theory is fake, the research has been falsified.
      Anyway, i see nothing wrong with EPA, except maybe they are too lax, and "are in bed" with big business and big pharma, even defending the evil Monsanto is doing to our environment (spewing orders of magnitude more Roundup than EPA limit), and nothing is done about it.

  26. Andre G | May 8, 2012

    I mostly agree with this article. A couple of thoughts: (1) American people will get what they deserve. With the access to information, they should not be surprised at the (future) outcomes…it's there. Ignorance should not be an excuse (2) No matter who wins the presidency, the future still has enormous challenges that our political parties will NOT be able to handle/correct. Just look at what is happening in Europe; a clear movement toward center left, toward anti-austerity measures, toward tax the rich (to solve our problems). The inevitable result will be more money printing, followed by (probably) insane inflation. Both US political parties will be held hostage by the unions and will not be able to put a dent into any federal austerity measures. Hence we will follow the same money-printing, inflationary path that Europe is embarking on.

  27. Sodbuster | May 8, 2012

    Have all you Obummass lovers had your eyes shut since 2008. give him another 4 years and you
    won't have a country that you used to know. I truely believe that the general populace has been
    dumbed down and don't realize what is happening. Check the bills that "O" has ready to go if
    he thinks he will lose the election. You won't believe what you find. Just a hint-get ready for the
    UN to tell the USA what to do and when, Wise up……….

  28. thomas | May 8, 2012

    Re ignorance is bliss
    MR. Bratton all you have to do is read the book and perhaps enlightenment will come your way, although it is extremely unlikely. Have a nice day, but if you have a crappy one that's even better.

  29. Eileen | May 8, 2012

    There appears to be a misconception among the electorate that health care costs are due to providers. That is not the case. The spiraling costs of health care are due to too many health care providers ordering endless battery of expensive tests to cover their behinds. It is also due to the fact that most people who use healthcare have their costs covered by someone else, so the health care consumer has no idea how much their care costs.

    Cutting back on providers will only make it worse. To increase their incomes, health care providers will continue to order expensive tests with businesses with whom they have a financial arrangement. Perhaps a better way is a single payer system, which is not what Obamacare is. A single payer system will at least force insurance companies to deliver quality care, whose premiums are set by the people outside of the insurance industry.

    Obamacare continues the practice of 3rd party payment, which is one of the biggest reasons why health care costs have spiraled out of control. It also makes only a token attempt to regulate premiums and there is no disincentive to pay the fine on April 15, as the fine is for some people less than a quarter of their proposed insurance premiums. The fines are topped out, so that anyone over a certain income (no maximum) pays the maximum fine.

    I still think the American people wanted Insurance reform, to prohibit insurance companies from imposing silly rules like pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, or dropping people when they get sick. Americans also want a mechanism to keep their insurance coverage in the event of a job loss. Moving to a single payer system and leaving employers out of the mix will solve some of continuity in coverage issues that are so prevalent today. I do not think Americans wanted someone outside of them and their families making the decision on how much health care to purchase or to be forced to pay for more health care than they want or need.

  30. Nan McConnochie | May 8, 2012

    America needs, must repay its trillions of debt, and you need to innovate innovate innovate so you stay apace with the game. And you need to have respect for each other. Watching from the sidelines you are all hung up with religion and yourselves. Look outward and grow.

    Nan. New Zealand

  31. Lorene | May 8, 2012

    I know there is more poor white than other races in United States. What will happen to them if Rommey elected (jump over the cliff)?

  32. Ed the Grocer | May 8, 2012

    Running for president? I think it is rule # 38 that allows republicans to vote for whomever first time around. What are the odds of RP.
    Health care will not be solved by the government. There are a number of 'grass roots' efforts that will actually turn the country around. Look for mercury fillings, GMO labeling, anti vaccines, anti fruit sugar, pro vitamin D and C, anti aspartame, anti fluoride, anti glyphosate, pro free fatty acids ( ha, got you ). If there is even modest success in these areas, health care costs will become negligible.
    Regulations have two sharp edges. tough and impossible. When they become impossible, work stops and corruption begins.

  33. Robert | May 9, 2012

    The Republican think more about Obama being a one term president than the progress of this nation because they keep on killing Obama's policies for progress.Voters cast your vote well

  34. Dan | May 9, 2012

    Gee Martin…you're not too much of a republican are you?

    Thanks for allowing the impartial non biased drivel Money Morning!

  35. Linda | May 9, 2012

    If you want to see a "socialized" medicine system, look to the military system. You get seen within a reasonable period of time and much of your prescriptions are taken care of if they are on the formulary which is extensive. Doctors see many patients so people get seen. If you have ever been in the military, you know it works. I feel that if people do not want to pay anything for their healthcare, whether it is mandated purchase of health insurance (which we already deduct from people's paychecks) or an additional tax, then they ought to be seen for emergencies only and then sent out the door to take care of themselves if they don't have the money to pay for it. You shouldn't get something for nothing if you are not willing to ante in.

  36. sandy | September 5, 2012

    if obama is elected it will truly be a sad day for americans. if virginia doesn't wake up they will find themselves in a place where we won't have any defense for our country and we he will take from al of us so he can spend more money. he is a very sick guy with a lot of issues in his past and if a man bows to islam and won't wear a flag pin and refuses to put his hand over the his heart to salute the flag. Can you tell me that is going to good? We are heading to communism.

  37. free url shortener | September 26, 2012

    Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I definitely enjoyed reading it, you're a great author. I will always bookmark your blog and may come back later in life. I want to encourage continue your great posts, have a nice evening!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Some HTML is OK