ptown_trojans_1;1241259 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, we are in a period of low or stagnated growth. The administration's idea that we would be below 7.5% was fantasy from the start. None of the macroeconomic factor signaled that. The market is too timid and unstable for short term high growth.
As a result of the administration setting the bar too high, and faltered, they are playing catch up now with the narrative and failing.
Are the Obama policy's failing? If you go by their own metric in 2009-10, then yes. Are they continuing to build growth, sort of.
Bottom line is though, I don't think who is in the White House matters with the economy, as the system is so large that the Executive Branch has little or no forecast ability. Almost all policies are reactionary.
If McCain was in the White House, the economy would be in the same shape, I would image, as his policies would not have been much different.
That said, the American public vote on the economy, and the President takes the fall. If the Obama White House continues to get small, slow growth, which I expect, Romney has a real shot of winning.
But, I seriously doubt the election of Romney will end the period of slow growth. Romney will face the same sick system full of boom and busts, and low growth, and he won't have the power to influence it.
ptown, you make a great point here, but what does that say about the electorate? Are people really that dumb to believe that one man can magically make everything good again? The recession was so great, so deep that there was no way it was going to be reversed in four years. If I really thought that Mitt could turn everything around he would get my vote. My fear is that the government-cutters will gain power and use the hatchet instead of the scalpel. If that happens, I fear that things will get much, much worse.
