Obamanomics

[Pliny]

I remember Barack getting a little frustrated and paternal back when he wanted his stimulus package approved by congress. If I may paraphrase, this is what I remember him saying - "The government needs to spend to stimulate the economy - that's what a stimulus is." It is necessary to put money into the economy and get people spending and stimulating the economy.

He also said that if the stimulus package was not approved unemployment would go as high as 9%. If it is approved it will only go to about 8%. It was approved and uemployment in the US today is 9.4% and rising. He also said he would create quite a few jobs. ???? I forget how many it was but after the economy lost 2million jobs I would say he missed the mark on that one, too.

Is he mendacious as some claim? He is a politician after all and they all seem to suffer from some form of mendacity. Is he then the politician of all politicians? The essence, the epitome of what makes great politicians. Actually most are made great by historians but that's for another thread.

My personal opinion is this. I waited for him to say something concrete in his campaign speeches, and while he was great with the rhetoric and platitudes and promised to heal all wounds he never really said anything about how that would be accomplished. On charges of being socialistic, the bane of American politics, he attempted to disclaim any link to socialist ideals but was all for universal health care, redistributing the wealth, increased regulation of the economy and expanding the size of government. According to him that's not socialist.

Now we skip ahead and I am still waiting for something that may be concrete but I still only hear the rhetoric and the platitudes. He is following the advice of his economic advisors who have been government lackeys or are CEO's of corporations with huge government contracts such as the CEO of GE Mr. Geoffrey Imelt. They put on a good face and I think they really feel they can accomplish what they want. I just wish they would tell us what they want. It doesn't appear to be be prosperity and a thriving economy.

I don't know how he plans on doing all the things he says he will do, like introduce universal health care, a cap and trade carbon program, green energy solutions (no nuclear or fossil fuels allowed) all with out increasing any taxes to middle America. Only the rich will pay. America can say goodbye to them, I guess. They will either leave or stay and lose most of what they have through taxation.

Yesterday, I heard he wanted to introduce a pay as you go bill. Meaning government shouldn't be recklessly spending and increasing the nation's debt. I don't know how that jibes with his initial plan to spend and stimulate the economy. I guess he sees it isn't working although he hasn't really started spending. Some are waiting to see if his policies will work but he isn't even giving himself a chance to see if they will work before he heads off in some other direction.

I have concluded that Obama has a knack for saying what people want to hear. I think he has a vision and that is what he works from - practicality and feasibility do not seem to be a part of the equation, unfortunately.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Pliny

[WIP]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument! Flipping through Rush and some other rightwing demagogues on the radio, you would think that everything was going fine until Barack Obama driving the U.S. government into bankruptcy. The tragedy is that many people have attention deficit disorder these days, they've probably already erased the memories of George Dubya Bush, and the damage he did by cutting taxes, starting wars financed by increasing debt, and adding to entitlement spending.

So, how did projected budget surpluses turn into massive deficits?

When Bill Clinton left office, the CBO projected $800 billion surpluses for 2009-2012. Now that same office is predicting - with rather more certainty, one would think - $1.2 trillion deficits for the same years.

The above-linked article attempts to figure out why. Here's the key points:

* The biggest chunk of the projected deficit is from what the article calls "the business cycle." Certainly there was a recession earlier in the decade, and we're now in the Great Recession or whatever it's being called. This accounts for 37%.

* Coming in at a close second is George W. Bush's signature domestic policies, like his tax cuts and Medicare Part D. These account for 33% of the projected deficit. Let's remember this.

* 20% of the projected deficit is due to Obama continuing various Bush programs and policies. The Iraq War continues to be a huge drain on our nation's finances. The tax cut for people making under $250,000 and the Wall Street bailout are in this category.

* The stimulus bill accounts for 7% of the projected deficit.

* Obama's proposed plans for health care, education and energy reform account for 3% of the projected deficit. According to the article, "If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits"

Funny how all of these fiscal conservatives were so quiet when Bush created his prescription drug benefit plan, to buy the votes of senior citizens. Most of massive deficit was already set in place by the Bush Administration.....they just figured the wheels wouldn't fall off the economic wagon until they were safely out of office, and able to foist all of the blame on the incoming administration.

Now, the Obama Administration has some hard choices to make; and they should start by increasing the top tier income tax rates, and make some deep cuts on military spending to cover needed reforms on health care, improvements to infrastructure and the environment.

[Pliny]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good argument! Flipping through Rush and some other rightwing demagogues on the radio, you would think that everything was going fine until Barack Obama driving the U.S. government into bankruptcy. The tragedy is that many people have attention deficit disorder these days, they've probably already erased the memories of George Dubya Bush, and the damage he did by cutting taxes, starting wars financed by increasing debt, and adding to entitlement spending.

So, how did projected budget surpluses turn into massive deficits?

When Bill Clinton left office, the CBO projected $800 billion surpluses for 2009-2012. Now that same office is predicting - with rather more certainty, one would think - $1.2 trillion deficits for the same years.

The above-linked article attempts to figure out why. Here's the key points:

* The biggest chunk of the projected deficit is from what the article calls "the business cycle." Certainly there was a recession earlier in the decade, and we're now in the Great Recession or whatever it's being called. This accounts for 37%.

* Coming in at a close second is George W. Bush's signature domestic policies, like his tax cuts and Medicare Part D. These account for 33% of the projected deficit. Let's remember this.

* 20% of the projected deficit is due to Obama continuing various Bush programs and policies. The Iraq War continues to be a huge drain on our nation's finances. The tax cut for people making under $250,000 and the Wall Street bailout are in this category.

* The stimulus bill accounts for 7% of the projected deficit.

* Obama's proposed plans for health care, education and energy reform account for 3% of the projected deficit. According to the article, "If the analysis is extended further into the future, well beyond 2012, the Obama agenda accounts for only a slightly higher share of the projected deficits"

Funny how all of these fiscal conservatives were so quiet when Bush created his prescription drug benefit plan, to buy the votes of senior citizens. Most of massive deficit was already set in place by the Bush Administration.....they just figured the wheels wouldn't fall off the economic wagon until they were safely out of office, and able to foist all of the blame on the incoming administration.

Now, the Obama Administration has some hard choices to make; and they should start by increasing the top tier income tax rates, and make some deep cuts on military spending to cover needed reforms on health care, improvements to infrastructure and the environment.

This article doesn't even deserve comment. You seem to present it as some scientific document, WIP. A work of incredibly insightful economic analysis.

Meanwhile none of my points of Obamanomic inconsistencies are addressed.

I will agree Bush spent too much, too but at least he knew he wasn't living in the land of entitlement. Meanwhile Obama although criticizing and throwing responsibility on Bush for the deficit plans to cure the problem with increased spending and entitlement on some sort of pay as you go plan that promises to keep the deficit to a minimum. He will of course blame the economy, the people for not spending, Tim Geithnor or something else plus the Bush policies but his policies and plans will be sound.

I listened to the Ed Shultz from MSNBC, clip on "Boycotting anti-American Psycho talkers" while I was visiting the URL you got the article from. Why would he want to do that to himself?

He talks like he is living in France already, where everyone has entitlements and no responsibilities.

It is amazing to me that the left sees absolutely nothing wrong with their policies of entitlement and their forever guarantee from govenrment. They promise health care, education, social security, welfare, all kinds of benefits as though an economy can promise to support all this for all time. When the economy collapses sorry bye bye entitlements - hello totalitarianism. The economy has shrunk but not collapsed yet, when it does will you be on the side demanding government entitlement or the side demanding the restoration of individual responsibility for self and society?

Edited June 11, 2009 by Pliny

[sharkman]

You make good points Pliny. The bottom line is that the stimulus bill isn't working. They have it set at only spending 10% of the 780 billion this year, and they scratch their heads and wonder why it's not working out. Sigh.

But the philosophy behind the stimulus is that government can fix everything. They should have let the marketplace sort out the winners and losers instead, but they attempt to save everyone and spend 10x the money to get the same result. Meanwhile, California teeters on the edge of bankruptcy.

WIP, okay, we get it, you are right, good job and all that. Yes, there are some out there who didn't seem to care about Bush's spending but now scream about Obama's. You've made your point. Good for you. So now what?

Can you look at the present problem analytically and see any concerns? Or are you incapable of anything beyond Bush didit too? Do you think that just maybe Obama's efforts are not effective?

[Shady]

Obamanomics, Spending stimulus or Pay as you go?

Apparently it's both. Somehow this man gets away with speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he spends more recklessly then any other President in the history of the country, and with his very next breath, has the nerve to talk about a 'pay as you go' policy. The only bright side to all of this, is that he's setting himself up to be a one term President. It'll be nice when somebody new is in the White House, and gets the government out of the banking business, and out of the car business, lowers taxes, ends depression-like tarrifs like the 'buy America' provisions, and gets America's fiscal house in order, instead of making it 10 times worse.

And lets not forget. He proclaimed that passing his stimulus bill was necessary to curb unemployment from hitting 10%. Well, it's already 9.4%. What the hell happened? Then we hear that only $44 billion dollars of the nearly $800 billion dollar stimulus has been spent so far, and that the brainiacs have decided to ramp up spending now. Apparently the economic situation just wasn't dire enough a few months ago for them to have structured more spending sooner. And we also find out that most of the money won't be spent until 2010. What happened to an economic stimulus package that is timely, targeted and temporary? They've completely failed on all fronts.

[WIP]

This article doesn't even deserve comment. You seem to present it as some scientific document, WIP. A work of incredibly insightful economic analysis.

Meanwhile none of my points of Obamanomic inconsistencies are addressed.

Except the most obvious one: The Right is trying to load the blame for debt and deficits on the new administration. A cynic could conclude that the eight year Bush strategy was to bankrupt the country so badly that no future administration could address domestic needs in health care and other social issues.

I don't know whether Obama can turn things around; preliminary evidence suggests that he is too timid and centrist to take on the big monied interests that don't want a national health care plan, and REAL banking reform that would reign in the casino gambling otherwise known as derivatives trading.

What I can't stomach, is the conservative right trying to blame problems on government oversight, when the lack of regulation and ridiculously low taxes led to the market bubble in the first place. The Republican plan is to blame any future economic malaise on "socialism" so they can go back to screwing us over under a new Republican administration that will reward the filthy rich at everyone else's expense.

[stevoh]

I have concluded that Obama has a knack for saying what people want to hear. I think he has a vision and that is what he works from - practicality and feasibility do not seem to be a part of the equation, unfortunately.

Take a look at some of the less newsworthy items he has been working on, such as hurricane preparedness and FEMA improvements. The contraversial news items get all the press, meanwhile he is accomplishing measurable good work that is not reported on.

In other words, on hurricane preparedness and other items, he has made practical and feasible changes that are already in action.

[Guthrie]

Obama is doing nothing he hasn't said he'd do. Nor is he proposing things he hadn't proposed during the campaign - health care or pay as you go or any of the other issues the right wing has yet to discover ---

the only amazing part is how the right wing pundits seem to lack any ability to pay attention when someone is telling them the truth - after months of falsely accusing Obama of producing a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, they started accusing Obama of following Bush because he hasn't pulled the troops out of Iraq in his first 5 months of office --- the dimwit fascist pundits just can't keep up with reality - the are always in a state of agitated surprise

[Pliny]

A comment on your signature, Guthrie.

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

This is true because they do not place themselves in a position to be subjected to police. If they do they soon find out police are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent and brutal.

[Guthrie]

A comment on your signature, Guthrie.

“Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD

This is true because they do not place themselves in a position to be subjected to police. If they do they soon find out police are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent and brutal.

"...because they do not place themselves in a position to be subjected to police..." - this is not true

[Pliny]

Except the most obvious one: The Right is trying to load the blame for debt and deficits on the new administration.

The left is loading the blame for debt and deficits on the old administration. Why do you keep saying the same thing. I agree Bush spent too much. His plans and policies were, in my estimation, too costly and ineffective. But I don't pretend to have had a better plan. He had the support of the people for most of his administration.

As a Canadian you probably find that an impossibility but your political leanings are contrary to most Americans.

And most Americans are waking up to the fact that Obama's agenda is big, big government, a concept antithetical in American history.

A cynic could conclude that the eight year Bush strategy was to bankrupt the country so badly that no future administration could address domestic needs in health care and other social issues.

An easy conclusion. However, most cynics don't think Bush was smart enough to make that kind of a plan. It is a bit of a stretch to think Bush acted out of evil to bankrupt America. He wanted America safe against terrorism and that was his prime objective. He was successful in that, I think. If you disagree with his methods to achieve his prime directive then offer your alternatives as to what he should have done.

I think his actions were a but reactionary and perhaps a little more thought could have been put into his plans but he didn't have time to lay around and be a lame duck president with the kinds of threats he was faced with.

I don't know whether Obama can turn things around; preliminary evidence suggests that he is too timid and centrist to take on the big monied interests that don't want a national health care plan, and REAL banking reform that would reign in the casino gambling otherwise known as derivatives trading.

Too centrist? (Chuckle) He is walking a tightrope. He is a leftist that hasn't been seen in the Presidency since FDR and big government populism. WW II kind of woke Americans up regarding big government. They didn't like Fascism, Nazism, Communism or even socialism. The warnings of big government have over the years been allayed mainly by those with a proclivity to social engineering. Teaching teachers what to teach in public schools about the benefits that government provides its citizens is only one aspect of this social engineering.

"WE are the government and we are here to help." no longer strikes fear in their hearts, to the point where you yourself among many others, even express the opinion it is popular to demand more taxation. I think California demonstrated they didn't want more taxation.

Obama isn't interested in turning things around. He is interested in creating his vision of society in America.

What I can't stomach, is the conservative right trying to blame problems on government oversight, when the lack of regulation and ridiculously low taxes led to the market bubble in the first place. The Republican plan is to blame any future economic malaise on "socialism" so they can go back to screwing us over under a new Republican administration that will reward the filthy rich at everyone else's expense.

Economics is not your strong point. You don't like things like profit and wealth so I don't expect you to ever consider how they are created in your ideological world just how it should be distributed. Perhaps this is why you don't view government as a big hose sucking up what ever it can get away with sucking up from the economy. Your view is one of caring and sharing and to ensure people care and share because you hold the opinion they are not likely to do so without the nanny state enforcing it. The actuality is that they do care and share when there is plenty and they care and share even more when there is scarcity. Socialists are so afraid that someone just might be receiving too much benefit from their productivity. Ignorance of economics brings this point to the fore. Indeed, it is easy to observe inequities and even absurdities in our currently structured economy. How can you even begin to understand what is going on economically when you have ideas like "lack of regulation" is a problem. You aren't concerned in the least about the regulation of the economy your idea of regulation is entirely concerning regulating people, do that and the economy will be fine. Is that your concept?

If anything, Obama has a concept of society without any consideration of how wealth is created. There are increasingly more people in North America with no idea of how wealth is created. Basically, it is created by the production of the people in the society. It's creation is then dependent upon the confidence that it's creation is secure from criminality - thievery or worse seizure from dictatorial governments. Wealth will not be created in a society that does not protect the concept of private property no one will produce without the security of enjoying the benefits of their production and the security of their person and property. Take it from there and at least try to get beyond your contempt for profit and the "filthy rich". They don't need rewards from any Government, Republican or otherwise, and none should be offered them. They just need to be ensured the wealth of the nation is secure from thievery, do that and production will occur in abundance; if it is at all possible. It is only under these circumstances that the lazy, the incompetent, the challenged in society can be sustained charitably. Not by the seizure of the wealth of the land to be parceled out according to the whim of the heads of State and a populace sanctimoniously empowered by government entitlement.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

"...because they do not place themselves in a position to be subjected to police..." - this is not true

You left out the rest of the statement which qualifies the first part.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is true because they do not place themselves in a position to be subjected to police. If they do they soon find out police are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent and brutal.

Very much the case....my only brush with the criminal justice system comes by way of jury duty. It is amazing to see so many resources expended essentially for those who refuse to get with the program, yet they demand entitlements from the very same system.

Edited June 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Pliny]

Take a look at some of the less newsworthy items he has been working on, such as hurricane preparedness and FEMA improvements. The contraversial news items get all the press, meanwhile he is accomplishing measurable good work that is not reported on.

In other words, on hurricane preparedness and other items, he has made practical and feasible changes that are already in action.

Where is the media on this? The accomplishments of the President not newsworthy? The press loves the guy surely they would place some emphasis on his accomplishment of measurably good work. What is so controversial about him that is getting all the press? "He is great. He is good." that seems to be what I see in the press. The controversy seems to remain in discussion by the general public - besides some complaints he is not liberal enough.

[Guthrie]

You left out the rest of the statement which qualifies the first part.

the qualifications are the reverse of reality --- the place where an african american can expect to draw the most heat is in a white neighborhood ----- whites do NOT avoid such places

[bush_cheney2004]

the qualifications are the reverse of reality --- the place where an african american can expect to draw the most heat is in a white neighborhood ----- whites do NOT avoid such places

Not sure I understand this.....the most dangerous place for an "african american" is a "black" neighborhood.

Lots of "heat" to be found there.....from many quarters.

[stevoh]

Where is the media on this? The accomplishments of the President not newsworthy? The press loves the guy surely they would place some emphasis on his accomplishment of measurably good work. What is so controversial about him that is getting all the press? "He is great. He is good." that seems to be what I see in the press. The controversy seems to remain in discussion by the general public - besides some complaints he is not liberal enough.

The accomplishments that most people agree with are simply not newsworthy. Not even Fox news can come up with a strong case against being better prepared for hurricanes. Obama has also made some sensible changes to recent drug laws that I cannot locate in the MSM except for a small article on a drug user having specific charges dropped.

Its not like they aren't putting it out there, they had a half day media conference for the FEMA issue, and most issues are outlined on the government website. They just don't sell as many papers as "racist latinos" or "terrorists on American soil".

[Guthrie]

Not sure I understand this.....the most dangerous place for an "african american" is a "black" neighborhood.

Lots of "heat" to be found there.....from many quarters.

as far as I know, the issue of my signature is a distraction -- changing from that distraction to a further one is not a style of discussion I care for --- if you wish to change the subject from police intimidation to difficulties of life in the ghetto, maybe we should start a new thread - but as far as taking harassment from the police, there is NO place more likely to get a brother stopped than a drive through Beverly Hills, just the facts, maam

[bush_cheney2004]

as far as I know, the issue of my signature is a distraction -- changing from that distraction to a further one is not a style of discussion I care for --- if you wish to change the subject from police intimidation to difficulties of life in the ghetto, maybe we should start a new thread - but as far as taking harassment from the police, there is NO place more likely to get a brother stopped than a drive through Beverly Hills, just the facts, maam

I've been a "brother" all my life, and have not found that to be true at all. Your stereotype reality is your own. Have been through 90210 many times...just last December in fact with a "sista" in the car...no stop...just the facts...'bro.

[Oleg Bach]

I've been a "brother" all my life, and have not found that to be true at all. Your stereotype reality is your own. Have been through 90210 many times...just last December in fact with a "sista" in the car...no stop...just the facts...'bro.

As a Canadian musical hick - as a young man I stumbled into the darkest and most ghettoish place ever - It was the mean streets of Oakland California - two blonde guitar players took up residence on Foot Hills Blvd...we lived there over a year - we were told later that white boys..can not go into such a place and survive - we got along well -----------my friend was also a pool hustler - we would go into a black bar in the hood to hustle and drink -----------I was sitting at the bar with my long blonde hair and pale skin - a very tough old black man leaned over with a very serious scowl - he said to me with force "Are you black?" ---- I thought for a second and sincerly said "Yes - I am black" - at that point I was a brother and not once were we bothered - we became part of the community....also as a kid - the anglos would toss rocks though our windows because we may as well have been black - because we were different - I as a white boy suffered racial discrimination and had to fight my way out - I was black ---inside. Bro..

[Pliny]

The accomplishments that most people agree with are simply not newsworthy. Not even Fox news can come up with a strong case against being better prepared for hurricanes. Obama has also made some sensible changes to recent drug laws that I cannot locate in the MSM except for a small article on a drug user having specific charges dropped.

Its not like they aren't putting it out there, they had a half day media conference for the FEMA issue, and most issues are outlined on the government website. They just don't sell as many papers as "racist latinos" or "terrorists on American soil".

Why do you feel that Fox news would be against being better prepared for hurricanes? Perhaps they may feel that the federal government is not the best agency to be dealing with that issue but Fox news generally supports the Federal government which is perhaps why they aren't arguing the point. It could always be presented as controversial in some respect.

Would the States be better suited to handle such things or maybe private interests should be given a chance?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Would the States be better suited to handle such things or maybe private interests should be given a chance?

Hurricanes...indeed any natural disaster....have become politicized. The tug-o-war between local, state, and federal officials has been co-opted for political gain. Even the ethnicity and demographics of victims has been enjoined as part of the game.

[Pliny]

Hurricanes...indeed any natural disaster....have become politicized. The tug-o-war between local, state, and federal officials has been co-opted for political gain. Even the ethnicity and demographics of victims has been enjoined as part of the game.

So you are saying political expediency sometimes overrides the best public interest? Is it Obama's dream to look after America? He has the vision and now he can make it happen overriding any concerns about public interest.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

As a Canadian musical hick - as a young man I stumbled into the darkest and most ghettoish place ever - It was the mean streets of Oakland California - two blonde guitar players took up residence on Foot Hills Blvd...we lived there over a year - we were told later that white boys..can not go into such a place and survive - we got along well -----------my friend was also a pool hustler - we would go into a black bar in the hood to hustle and drink -----------I was sitting at the bar with my long blonde hair and pale skin - a very tough old black man leaned over with a very serious scowl - he said to me with force "Are you black?" ---- I thought for a second and sincerly said "Yes - I am black" - at that point I was a brother and not once were we bothered - we became part of the community....also as a kid - the anglos would toss rocks though our windows because we may as well have been black - because we were different - I as a white boy suffered racial discrimination and had to fight my way out - I was black ---inside. Bro..

Black or white - you are a special kind of guy, Oleg!

[bush_cheney2004]

So you are saying political expediency sometimes overrides the best public interest?

Yes, particularly when the affected state means a large voter base (e.g. Florida). Natural disasters in less populated states (like the Dakotas) draw much less attention from political wonks. Corps projects are bartered in Congress for votes.