Obama Is Destroying The Economy

GostHacked · March 9, 2009

Not only his words, but his disasterous policies that have scared the crap out of business and investors.

You do understand that it is a global crisis now and not just a US problem. So, I'll jump in your boat and say the whole world has gone to shit, and it is all Obama's fault.

sharkman · March 9, 2009

Read your own words. First you say that he has done nothing for the economy (sure, the stimulus package is way too small but to call it nothing is ridiculous). Then you go on about the market falling.
I simply put two and two together.

As for politicians and their words: how gullible do people have to be - he is a politician.

A lying politician. He is not some kind of magic man with soothing words that will make people do foolish things like buy stocks when fundamentals are eroding (you know, things like earnings estimates which are still being revised lower and lower).

You misread my comments. I clearly said, "So what has Obama done since Jan 20 that has had a positive effect on the economy. Nothing. "... That does not mean I think he has done nothing, as you accuse me of.

I also referenced the stimulus, saying, "Less than 10% of the stimulus package gets spent in 2009" which clearly shows I think he is doing something right now, but it's not enough.

If you can't tell that I'm not mixing up the market in those and other comments, then you are not reading objectively. Also, you seem to feel that presidents can not influence the stock market with words and announcements of anti-business policies. Well, carry on then.

punked · March 9, 2009

You misread my comments. I clearly said, "So what has Obama done since Jan 20 that has had a positive effect on the economy. Nothing. "... That does not mean I think he has done nothing, as you accuse me of.
I also referenced the stimulus, saying, "Less than 10% of the stimulus package gets spent in 2009" which clearly shows I think he is doing something right now, but it's not enough.

If you can't tell that I'm not mixing up the market in those and other comments, then you are not reading objectively. Also, you seem to feel that presidents can not influence the stock market with words and announcements of anti-business policies. Well, carry on then.

SO he should spend more money you think?

msj · March 9, 2009

You misread my comments. I clearly said, "So what has Obama done since Jan 20 that has had a positive effect on the economy. Nothing. "... That does not mean I think he has done nothing, as you accuse me of.
I also referenced the stimulus, saying, "Less than 10% of the stimulus package gets spent in 2009" which clearly shows I think he is doing something right now, but it's not enough.

If you can't tell that I'm not mixing up the market in those and other comments, then you are not reading objectively. Also, you seem to feel that presidents can not influence the stock market with words and announcements of anti-business policies. Well, carry on then.

Fair enough. This is not the first time I have misread you so maybe it's not all about me (although it really should be, shouldn't it! :lol: )

Sure, politicians influence markets.

To expect any politician to quickly influence the markets today under the economic conditions of today I think shows just how much you are misreading the state of the economy.

The world has been trying to keep out of a deflationary spiral since at least September of 2008. This is not going to be solved overnight with a few words.

By the time Americans (i.e. Republicans) realize that this is a demand problem that needs massive stimulus, well, by then we should be staring down the beginning of the end (of the recession) rather than the end of the beginning (of the recession).

sharkman · March 9, 2009

Fair enough. This is not the first time I have misread you so maybe it's not all about me (although it really should be, shouldn't it! )
Sure, politicians influence markets.

To expect any politician to quickly influence the markets today under the economic conditions of today I think shows just how much you are misreading the state of the economy.

The world has been trying to keep out of a deflationary spiral since at least September of 2008. This is not going to be solved overnight with a few words.

By the time Americans (i.e. Republicans) realize that this is a demand problem that needs massive stimulus, well, by then we should be staring down the beginning of the end (of the recession) rather than the end of the beginning (of the recession).

Although I obviously don't have the background you do, I beg to differ in the approach needed, which doesn't need to be repeated here. I will say, however, that the complete lack of any experience is showing in Obama. I believe that the situation could have been better handled by a veteran than a rookie and Americans will suffer through more than they should have because of it.

punked · March 9, 2009

Although I obviously don't have the background you do, I beg to differ in the approach needed, which doesn't need to be repeated here. I will say, however, that the complete lack of any experience is showing in Obama. I believe that the situation could have been better handled by a veteran than a rookie and Americans will suffer through more than they should have because of it.

Bush had 7 and a half years under his belt when this started what was his answer? That is your veteran answer right there.

sharkman · March 9, 2009

Bush had 7 and a half years under his belt when this started what was his answer? That is your veteran answer right there.

Come again? I don't follow what you are trying to say...that when this started in 2008, Bush had no experience? Or that it didn't matter what his level of experience was? Or just that Bush is no good, which is usually what you are trying to say.

In other words, what is the veteran question that you are trying to answer with the veteran answer?!

...wait a minute, wait a minute, I know what you are saying, "Bush lied and soldiers died!" Right? Am I right?

Edited March 9, 2009 by sharkman

blueblood · March 9, 2009

Fair enough. This is not the first time I have misread you so maybe it's not all about me (although it really should be, shouldn't it! )
Sure, politicians influence markets.

To expect any politician to quickly influence the markets today under the economic conditions of today I think shows just how much you are misreading the state of the economy.

The world has been trying to keep out of a deflationary spiral since at least September of 2008. This is not going to be solved overnight with a few words.

By the time Americans (i.e. Republicans) realize that this is a demand problem that needs massive stimulus, well, by then we should be staring down the beginning of the end (of the recession) rather than the end of the beginning (of the recession).

I'm curious to see what your thoughts are on the Elliot Wave phenomenon/theory. In my area, they suggested that they take the December lows and write them off as it wasn't the bottom (I've linked this article), and sure enough nowadays, things went down again. What I'm wondering is that, is this theory going to kick in again, or are rallies going to start happening again in the next few months. Ag economists seem divided on where they stand on this.

guyser · March 10, 2009

..that when this started in 2008, Bush had no experience? Or that it didn't matter what his level of experience was? Or just that Bush is no good, which is usually what you are trying to say.

Bush' business acumen prior to being Pres is there for all to see. I would doubt you would have faith in him considering that horrible record.(not that you said youw ould)

punked · March 10, 2009

Come again? I don't follow what you are trying to say...that when this started in 2008, Bush had no experience? Or that it didn't matter what his level of experience was? Or just that Bush is no good, which is usually what you are trying to say.
In other words, what is the veteran question that you are trying to answer with the veteran answer?!

...wait a minute, wait a minute, I know what you are saying, "Bush lied and soldiers died!" Right? Am I right?

No I am pointing out experience level does not matter if your policies are terrible.

Shady · March 10, 2009

No I am pointing out experience level does not matter if your policies are terrible.

The only thing that's worse than high experience and terrible policies, is zero experience and terrible policies...cough...Obama...cough.

punked · March 10, 2009

The only thing that's worse than high experience and terrible policies, is zero experience and terrible policies...cough...Obama...cough.

So Bush policies Bad Obama policies bad who has good ones?

bush_cheney2004 · March 10, 2009

So Bush policies Bad Obama policies bad who has good ones?

Good for who?

punked · March 10, 2009

Good for who?

America?

sharkman · March 10, 2009

No I am pointing out experience level does not matter if your policies are terrible.

The point is, more experience makes for better decisions, generally speaking. If you have no experience, you have nothing to draw from in deciding, for instance, if it's a good idea to try funding universal healthcare for Americans in the middle of the worst recession since the depression.

Smallc · March 10, 2009

for instance, if it's a good idea to try funding universal healthcare for Americans in the middle of the worst recession since the depression.

I don't know, I've never tried to implement such a system. Have you?

Edited March 10, 2009 by Smallc

sharkman · March 10, 2009

No, and experience in leadership of a country would tell me it's a bad idea.

Smallc · March 10, 2009

No, and experience in leadership of a country would tell me it's a bad idea.

You have experience with that?

GostHacked · March 10, 2009

No, and experience in leadership of a country would tell me it's a bad idea.

Or you surround yourself with qualified and knowledgeable people. A Pres is not a master of everything, that is why he has a crew of people to help him in areas that he is not very strong in. If all others are saying it is a good idea, then it is a good idea... unless everyone is an idiot.

sharkman · March 10, 2009

Yes, and he screwed up the surrounding yourself with qualified and knowledgeable part, choosing tax cheats after vetting them, something someone with experience would not do. Geitner still has not been able to fill out his staff, people he want to confirm keep removing their names from contention.

You still need experience to make these decisions, writing a letter to Russia(as mentioned above) showed his judgement to be bad.

punked · March 10, 2009

Yes, and he screwed up the surrounding yourself with qualified and knowledgeable part, choosing tax cheats after vetting them, something someone with experience would not do. Geitner still has not been able to fill out his staff, people he want to confirm keep removing their names from contention.
You still need experience to make these decisions, writing a letter to Russia(as mentioned above) showed his judgement to be bad.

Only time will tell. What would consider him succeeding to be? Let's set a bar and see if he reaches it or falls short otherwise we will all just keep moving the goal posts. Us on the left will Shorten them "Well he is getting 12 000 out of iraq by Sept that is a good thing" Not what we wanted at all.

You on the right lengthening them "Omnibus bill has so many ear marks it makes half the bill" while really it only makes up 1% but the talking point has killed the bill in the short sight.

Shady · March 11, 2009

Obama must know there's a problem when even people like Jack Welch and Warren Buffett are very unimpressed with his handling of the economy. The main criticizm seems to be that he's trying to fix every problem, all at once, when the consensus is that the financial sector needs to be addressed first. His scatter-shot approach has been more than a little unnerving.

I can't figure out why Obama's being so stubborn, other then it must be linked to his chief-of-staff insisting that "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

msj · March 11, 2009

Sure, things look bad with yet more former Goldman Sachs twits getting closer to Obama (there were plenty close to Bush and Clinton - how convenient people forget those disasters).

Things could be even worse, however.

Remember, had the "experienced" McCain won the presidency then the "experienced" Phil Gramm could be the Treasury Secretary.

You remember, the guy who talked about Americans being a nation of "whiners" for being in a "mental recession?"

Yeah, the guy who helped investment banks and regular banks and insurance companies become "too big to fail" with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Some real experience there. :rolleyes:

Edit - I write all that and then I happen across this: Thoughts on Bruce Bartlett's Views on Obama vs. McCain on Dealing with the Economic Crisis

So, as a conservative, would I vote for Obama if I had it to do over again?
The answer is yes and the reason is simple: I have no reason to think John McCain would be doing any better. He has given no indication since the election that he has any better ideas about how to deal with the economic crisis than Obama does.... All I ever saw in McCain’s campaign was a continuation of the failed policies of George W. Bush that got us into the mess we are in today. The only vote I have ever cast for president that I regret is my vote for Bush in 2004. That is because I knew better at the time...

On a related point, I think it was irresponsible for Bush to leave office without leaving behind a blueprint of what he would be doing to deal with the economic crisis if he were still in office. He didn’t publish a budget—at all, not even a current services baseline—and his Economic Report was totally vacuous. If he had used his administration’s resources to develop an alternative policy before leaving office it would at least have provided a guide for his party to follow. That fact that he did NOTHING only proves that he didn’t give a crap about the American people or his party, either. His whole administration was about him, him, and only him. What an asshole.

I suppose the revisionist history is starting and soon we will find out who are "real" Republicans and who isn't.

Edited March 11, 2009 by msj

Shady · March 11, 2009

China February Auto Sales Rise 25% After Tax Cuts

March 10 (Bloomberg) -- China vehicle sales surged 25 percent in February, the first gain in four months, after the government cut taxes on some models, helping the country extend its lead as the world’s largest auto market this year.

Bloomberg

It's a sad commentary when China is running more free-market captialist economic policy than Obama. Instead, what do we have? Huge tax increases proposed. Is there anyways American's can swap Barack Obama for Hu Jintao?

jdobbin · March 11, 2009

It's a sad commentary when China is running more free-market captialist economic policy than Obama. Instead, what do we have? Huge tax increases proposed. Is there anyways American's can swap Barack Obama for Hu Jintao?

I think you forget that the Chinese stimulus package, protectionist policies and subsidies for rural people to buy cars. That's capitalist?