Obama - a failed presidency?

[Papasito]

You guys fancy yourselves to be for the common man but are on the side of the rich at most turns despite your rhetoric.

That's true. Come to think about, all we hear about is how evil Wall Street is from Washington... about how those evil rich need to pay more taxes as they incite us to engage in class warfare... all the while Washington throws thier corporations billion after billion in bailouts... How can you curse them out one side of the mouth, while rewarding them with loads of cash out the other?

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, You don't grasp what I'm trying to say. When the Federal Reserve dumps huge amounts of liquidity into the market, it's owner banks do very well because they get to lend out more money than they had to lend out before. However, more dollars chasing the same amount of goods means that the dollars eventually need a place to be parked. That can be the stock market, housing, or tulip bulbs. More dollars chasing the same number of stocks or competing for houses distorts both markets by bidding up prices [[supply-demand).

You naively assume there is some sort of pent-up demand in the economy. There isn't. People aren't looking for places to spend and invest money, and the banks sure as hell aren't lending it.

Every single post you have made on this topic since the Fall of 2008 is based on an erroneous assumption that the economy behaves the same during a severe recession is it does during boom times.

Still waiting for that mass inflation you've been pissing yourself about for the past two years.... Oh wait, that's right--the Fed believes that inflation is actually TOO LOW right now, due explicitly to a LACK OF DEMAND in the economy.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Yt6cgD9ID6T480

But hey, whatever keeps you awake at night....

[maxx]

That's true. Come to think about, all we hear about is how evil Wall Street is from Washington... about how those evil rich need to pay more taxes as they incite us to engage in class warfare... all the while Washington throws thier corporations billion after billion in bailouts... How can you curse them out one side of the mouth, while rewarding them with loads of cash out the other?

What I read was the argument that putting the banks through the usual Fed bankruptcy procedure would have been more expensive and have taken longer.Remember Hank Paulson's announcement to some part of the gov. that there had to be an immediate bailout in the fall of 2008 or there wouldn't be a U.S. economy in a day. It may have been that the Fed just didn't have the people power to go through all those bankruptcies. And now I think we still need to deal with the banks that are too big to fail. I haven't heard any Republicans demanding legislation on that issue.

[Papasito]

First they need to re-enact the Glass–Steagall Act,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
and fix the other contributing factors that caused the financial meltdown in the first place.
Focus money where it matters most. Stop spending like a drunken sailor like Bush II & Obama.
Set a budget that matches what the Government takes in in taxes.
Stop the stranglehold on the economy so they [[employers/industry/corporations and small businesses) don't have to continue the seige mentality. Forget growth-- everyone is still in survival mode!

I haven't heard any Republicans demanding legislation on that issue.

That's the problem with Republicans - they talk a lot of sh*t so they can get elected, and then they don't do anything.

[mjs]

That's real cute. Sure sums up the whole mess were in. Didn't have to do with Wall Street. Didn't have to do with corporations. Didn't have to do with rich thiefs. Didn't have to do with lobbyists. Didn't have to do with wars. That summation would make a good history book - all one sentence of it.

We're in more agreement thant you realize, you're just missing the final step of the logic. The richest thieves like Madoff and Geithner got rich as a result of being trusted federal employees. I want to take away their power. Corporations got what they wanted because they gave truckloads of money to congress through lobbyists and they continue to regardless of which power hungry group is in control. Ok, I exaggerate. There's no trucks that big.

The more money big federal government controls, the more incentive big business has to bribe them. Break up that power monopoly. Believe that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give power back to the states so it can give it back to the people.

If we lower federal taxes while balancing the budget, the feds will have to give less to the states. Then the states will have to raise taxes. So, what. The states won't have to beg Washington for what was once rightfully theirs and we won't be pissing away money going from one inefficient government entity to another. Now, you understand what the power hungry in DC really fear. How do you control states and people if you don't control their pocket books? How do you skim big, if you run a small shop?

[mjs]

You naively assume there is some sort of pent-up demand in the economy. There isn't. People aren't looking for places to spend and invest money, and the banks sure as hell aren't lending it.

Every single post you have made on this topic since the Fall of 2008 is based on an erroneous assumption that the economy behaves the same during a severe recession is it does during boom times.

I don't see that as his erroneous assumption. I see it as the Feds erroneous assumption. They are buying our debts with funny money because it will lower interest rates so people will buy houses? Are they out of their ever loving minds? What are we Guatamala? If they're aren't enough people buying when rates are record low, house prices are down 30 to 50 percent, and they can get government backing with a joke of 3 percent down, they're simply aren't enough people buying.

And Obama's plans. You want jobs? Pay people to clean the mountains of trash off the sides of our freeways rather than put up the 250th road construction project that has the vast majority of the spending going to materials. How have you helped a guy struggling to make his mortgage payment by giving him tax incentives to take on payments on a car or a dryer? Good forbid any of them idiots put conditions on porkulus before speed voting that monstrosity in. These guys have such terrible results because poli-sci and law degrees teach you nothing about root cause analysis.

[mjs]

I found this article on the CRA and the subprime crisis which I had been looking for.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...ubprime_crisis

Information on the Fed's role in the subprime crisis seems to be coming from the Cato Institute, founded by ultrarightwinger and astroturf funder Charles Koch, so pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical.

I don't even know if they have a term for your logic fallacy. Its like saying he likes cheese and Hitler liked cheese so he must be a Nazi because only Nazi's like cheese. Attack arguments, not people. Only listen to the arguments that attack arguments, not people. The Fed's involvement in the subprime crisis is greatly documented by an extremely wide array of sources. I don't read things from the CATO institute and I've never heard of Koch outside of this website. I had to finally look the guy up. I generally get information on things such as the Fed from CNBC or PBS. CNBC can be called conservative, but is PBS?

[maxx]

Hardly a logical fallacy. I question the interpretations of the Cato Institute just like most Americans questioned the news coming out of Pravda and Izvestya, the way environmentalists question the opinions of scientists employed by Dow and other polluting businesses.

[Zacha341]

IMO it's all that you list and the march of government expansion beyond usefulness. It is not either - or, it IS both.

That's real cute. Sure sums up the whole mess were in. Didn't have to do with Wall Street. Didn't have to do with corporations. Didn't have to do with rich thiefs. Didn't have to do with lobbyists. Didn't have to do with wars. That summation would make a good history book - all one sentence of it.

[1KielsonDrive]

We're in more agreement thant you realize, you're just missing the final step of the logic. The richest thieves like Madoff and Geithner got rich as a result of being trusted federal employees. I want to take away their power. Corporations got what they wanted because they gave truckloads of money to congress through lobbyists and they continue to regardless of which power hungry group is in control. Ok, I exaggerate. There's no trucks that big.

The more money big federal government controls, the more incentive big business has to bribe them. Break up that power monopoly. Believe that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give power back to the states so it can give it back to the people.

If we lower federal taxes while balancing the budget, the feds will have to give less to the states. Then the states will have to raise taxes. So, what. The states won't have to beg Washington for what was once rightfully theirs and we won't be pissing away money going from one inefficient government entity to another. Now, you understand what the power hungry in DC really fear. How do you control states and people if you don't control their pocket books? How do you skim big, if you run a small shop?

We're in less agreement than you state. With a legislature like Michigan's, I'm not sure I'd want money redistributed to the states as an alternative to the federal government. Now, I realize it sounds like I'm playing in to your argument. No, your statement came from a man dedicated to squashing government - making sure it fails, and is practiced by a whole political system on both sides of the isle. Until we get the purse strings under our control, your statement is a self fulfilling prophecy. Unfortunately, I believe in that sense you are correct.

[rb336]

Attack arguments, not people. Only listen to the arguments that attack arguments, not people. The Fed's involvement in the subprime crisis is greatly documented by an extremely wide array of sources. I don't read things from the CATO institute and I've never heard of Koch outside of this website. I had to finally look the guy up. I generally get information on things such as the Fed from CNBC or PBS. CNBC can be called conservative, but is PBS?

first, if a source [[aka "person") has a history of essentially falsifying documentation, then it is perfectly OK to attack the source. and yes, PBS is often conservative, esp on wall street week and the newshour. Annenberg wouldn't fund them otherwise. other shows are almost liberal, but only in the very skewed American concept of what "liberal" means. very little of it is truly progressive.

[mjs]

first, if a source [[aka "person") has a history of essentially falsifying documentation, then it is perfectly OK to attack the source. and yes, PBS is often conservative, esp on wall street week and the newshour. Annenberg wouldn't fund them otherwise. other shows are almost liberal, but only in the very skewed American concept of what "liberal" means. very little of it is truly progressive.

Point is that Maxx picked an argument he didn't like and then tried to undermine it by saying it must be a bad idea if the Cato Institute believes it. As if they were the only ones to believe it. The Nazi party believed it was a good idea to keep trash of the streets, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.

I'm saying if you don't like the Cato Institute, its viewpoint on it should be irrelevant to you rather than the reason for your viewpoint. Nobody is saying they believe the Fed acted unwisely because the Cato institute told them to believe that. Liberals have been increasingly trying to explain away anything that goes against their views as mindless obedience to radical conservatism. Its as ignorant as when Bush and his cronies would tie anything in disagreement with them as unpatriotic. Losers in that was the American public as the dems then rolled over and played dead.

We need to reach resolution through reasoned debate rather than dramatic power plays. May make for good TV, but not for good public policy.

[1KielsonDrive]

I listened to a speech Obama gave yesterday, excerpted on a news program. What a maudling talk. Nothing inspirational or exciting about him and his speech, in any way. Does he think he can fire up his base, what's left of it, by talking like he's conducting a class at Harvard? This guy IS NOT a fighter. Not in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, he's head and shoulders above anyone else available at this time. What a mess we're in.

[Papasito]

The Hype:

A defiant President Barack Obama, standing Thursday aside a mock-up of the capsule that he hopes will one day carry astronauts to deep space, rejected criticism that his administration was scrapping America's human spaceflight program and outlined a vision that would have astronauts flying to asteroids beyond the moon in a little over a decade and circling Mars by the mid-2030s.
....
"The bottom line is that no one is more committed … to human spaceflight than I am," the president told a group that included NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, Florida politicians, aerospace industry executives and Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin.
....
Obama said that his program would create 2,500 more jobs than Constellation would have — though that number was never clear. He also would spend $1.9 billion over five years to modernize the aging spaceport — and has given a federal agency task force an Aug. 15 deadline to set up a $40 million job transition plan for KSC workers.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-spaceflight/2

The Reality:

900 Lose Jobs Today

The Kennedy Space Center in Orlando, Florida is expected to layoff hundreds of workers this week. The space shuttle program is nearing its retirement and 900 United Space Alliance workers are being let go.
http://www.layoffwatch.com/2010/09/n...iance-workers/

"With regard to the prospective jobs for the Space Coast that are presented by NASA in the documents released this week, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking those job numbers to the bank," Posey said.

Today 900 people find out that Obama's speeches are a nice pick me up, but reality is something completely different. The good news is that you can conveniently apply for Florida unemployment online.

[maxx]

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
“...In the last quarter of the Bush Administration, what was reported in the first quarter of last year, America’s GDP, the rate of growth of GDP was a minus 6.4 percent. Minus 6.4 percent. In the equivalent quarter of the Obama Administration one year later, it is at plus 5.9 percent. A swing of over 12 percent in the GDP. This is the fastest rate that we have seen in a long time..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010602824.html
"... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell suggested that instead of providing aid to the states to help them meet their Medicaid and education obligations, the federal government offer them loans. The idea is ridiculous on its face: With revenue drying up, states are already slashing services and reducing their workforces, which only deepens the downturn. The last thing they'd be inclined to do would be to take on more debt at the very moment they're struggling to balance their budgets.."

[oladub]

[quote]

“...In the last quarter of the Bush Administration, what was reported in the first quarter of last year, America’s GDP, the rate of growth of GDP was a minus 6.4 percent. Minus 6.4 percent. In the equivalent quarter of the Obama Administration one year later, it is at plus 5.9 percent. A swing of over 12 percent in the GDP. This is the fastest rate that we have seen in a long time..."

I think that Nancy Pelosi is wrong. The GDP grew at a mediocre rate of 3.7% in the first quarter not the 5.7% Nancy claims. In the second quarter, the GDP grew at only 1.7% or whatever make believe number Nancy chooses to put a happy face on the economy. Who knows? If Obama had spent a couple of trillion more and billed it to our children, maybe we could have experienced another quarter of 3.7% GDP growth and we could have gotten back down to 8.5% unemployment.

"... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell suggested that instead of providing aid to the states to help them meet their Medicaid and education obligations, the federal government offer them loans. The idea is ridiculous on its face: With revenue drying up, states are already slashing services and reducing their workforces, which only deepens the downturn. The last thing they'd be inclined to do would be to take on more debt at the very moment they're struggling to balance their budgets.."

Agreed, the federal government is broke too and has no authority to be loaning states money for such purposes.

[1KielsonDrive]

Hmmmmm. How did we get into this mess? Didn't we have a budget surplus and no wars happening a decade, or so, ago. What exactly took place in the meantime?

[1KielsonDrive]

Citizens of countries around the world are out in the streets protesting budget cuts and slashing of social security programs. Who caused all of this? Was it workers in the machine shops? Produce sellers? Teachers? Firefighters? Fast food workers? Who's been affected the most?

[maxx]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/09/w...really-do.html
"...In the 1980 campaign, Reagan pledged to do three things if elected: lower taxes, win the Cold War, and curb government spending. But in his haste to achieve the first two goals, he abandoned the third. On his watch, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 [[in contrast, government payrolls shrank by 373,000 during Clinton’s presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion. And the United States was transformed from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor..."

Gee, I don't remember any hand-wringing over the national debt back then. And Reagan could hire quite a few people because he depressed the wages of the civil service just to make sure that the best and the brightest would not be enticed to take a job with the gov.

[mjs]

Hmmmmm. How did we get into this mess? Didn't we have a budget surplus and no wars happening a decade, or so, ago. What exactly took place in the meantime?

Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and then voted for two long "heart and mind" wars rather than a no holds barred 30 day annihilation offensive against Al Queda and the Taliban.

When do you suppose either of those mistakes will be remedied?

[1KielsonDrive]

Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and then voted for two long "heart and mind" wars rather than a no holds barred 30 day annihilation offensive against Al Queda and the Taliban.

When do you suppose either of those mistakes will be remedied?

Thanks. Mine was really a rhetorical question. I know what you mentioned and it is accurate. I was trying to solicit comments on the bigger picture. As far as your last question: not during the Obama administration. He may finally begin the process, but he won't remedy wars ravaging not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but the entire Middle East and the world economy. Obama's pace, his ridiculous desire to engage the 'other side of the aisle', while being pummeled by them, and his inability to fight back, is indicative of a very intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, sado-masochist, who attempts to out talk and out debate you while being punched in the nose.

[maxx]

Congress repealed Glass-Steagall and then voted for two long "heart and mind" wars rather than a no holds barred 30 day annihilation offensive against Al Queda and the Taliban.

When do you suppose either of those mistakes will be remedied?

It doesn't look like Glass-Steagall is coming back any time soon. Some Congress members are trying with a different approach. But, it appears to be one of those issues that the average voter just doesn't get or get excited about. Kids are offered economics in high school today. You'd think someone would be teaching about it.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/20...lass-steagall/
"...
There seems to be no real push to reinstate Glass-Steagall in either of the pending versions of the financial overhaul bill being considered by the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee.
But the Senate version of the bill introduced this week by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, did go further than the House bill. Mr. Dodd’s bill called for the various banking regulators set up in the 1930s, which had separate jurisdictions based in part on the firewall divisions created by Glass-Steagall, to finally be merged into one new agency. The aim is that a single regulator would discourage regulator shopping by financial institutions and lead to better oversight of banks.."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aeQNTmo2vHpo
“If you look at what happened, with or without Glass- Steagall, it would have made no difference,” said H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of New York-based law firm Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, who represented one side or the other in more than a dozen transactions stemming from the financial crisis last year, including the rescues of Bear Stearns Cos., Fannie Mae, Wachovia Corp., and American International Group Inc.
Cohen and others say the law wouldn’t have saved Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., both of which were pure investment banks, from collapse. And the government would not have been able to enlist JPMorgan Chase & Co. to take on the assets of Bear Stearns or allow Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley to become bank holding companies, giving them access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window.

Rather than split up banks, regulators should provide better supervision and require tougher capital requirements, said Cohen, who was also involved on behalf of banking clients in shaping the bill that dismantled parts of Glass-Steagall..."

[Gyro]

The man is his own best spokesperson...

And don't miss the warning at the end.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

[1KielsonDrive]

The man is his own best spokesperson...

And don't miss the warning at the end.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/209395

Twiddle dee, twiddle dum makes a passionate plea for what? For voting for his party after they've shown little passion and fight. Pointing his finger? Has he ever passionately jabbed his finger? Has he ever passionately raised his voice in any of his speeches? Obama suffers from an 'arrogance of intellect'. He thinks he's the brightest guy in the room and people will believe and follow him just because he's so smart. Smart only gets you so far without fight. He certainly isn't a fighter. And, NO - he doesn't understand my frustration, or that of many people I know. The only thing possibly saving the Dems is what's saved them for years - the alternative is so bad. Maybe.

[1KielsonDrive]

The Huff Post today says most people on the left, in the middle and on the right, believe the Obama Administration is in over their heads. I think it was apparent in the first attempts at the outset - health care reform, Rick Warren, reaching across the isle, etc.