Obama can't get grip on economy

[Zacha341]

"Despite laying down a $1 trillion bet on a Keynesian economic juicing, growth is barely above 1 percent, teetering toward another recession."

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110828/OPINION03/108280316/Obama-can’t-get-grip-on-economy#ixzz1WKqWPJe3

Not since the voice of God rattled Mount Sinai have words stirred as much buzz as Warren Buffett's admonition for Washington to "stop coddling the rich." The plea by the self-loathing billionaire is now a rallying cry of President Barack Obama's supporters.

But declarations by another mega-rich Obama backer are getting much less play. Publisher Mort Zuckerman, owner of the New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report, penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal last week questioning Obama's competence.

"Mr. Obama seems unable to get a firm grip on the toughest issue facing his presidency and the country — the economy," Zuckerman wrote, expressing incredulity that nearly 1,000 days into his tenure, Obama is just now "pivoting" to jobs.

Zuckerman was part of the media mob that tossed its journalistic standards overboard in 2008 and lost its mind for Obama.

That the scales have fallen from his eyes is not surprising — Zuckerman is a businessman, and Obama's policies are strangling business.

His defection to the Obama doubters is part of a broader national awakening, polls suggest. And no wonder.

Despite laying down a $1 trillion bet on a Keynesian economic juicing, growth is barely above 1 percent, teetering toward another recession.

Also writing in the Journal, Stephen Moore noted that Obama, like President Ronald Reagan, inherited a severe recession. But at this point in Reagan's first term, the economy was booming and would keep growing for 80 months.

Reagan's success secret was unshackling the private marketplace. Obama chose the opposite path, and the result is stagnation and insecurity.

Although the president ballyhoos an end to burdensome regulations, the reality is his administration is a regulatory octopus.

Regulatory actions have increased 15 percent this year, and include 219 mandates with an impact above $100 million each.

No private marketplace can withstand such an onslaught.

Nearly everything the president has done on the economic front has failed. He's made the 2009 stimulus spending surge a permanent part of the budget, yet no net new jobs are materializing. He's put billions into stabilizing the housing market, yet foreclosures persist and home values are down.

Now we are waiting for Obama to deliver another major speech on the economy — his fourth or fifth since taking office — and there's no credible expectation that he's found the answer this time.

He'll call for even more spending on programs similar to the ones now failing.

His strategy is to present Republicans with a plan he knows they'll reject, and then head back to the campaign trail to blame them for the misery.

But he's fooling fewer people. As Zuckerman writes, "the buck stops with him. … It is the president's job to offer a coherent program for the twin threats of a static economy and an unsustainable explosion of our debts and deficits."

It's a job he's not doing.

[ddaydetroit]

We are on a roll this is 2 presidents in a row that couldn't get a grip on The economy I will be looking a little closer at independents and other parties next elections I'm not happy with either party and no the tea party is not an option

[firstandten]

What people either fail to or don't want to realize is that what we are seeing is the result of thirty years of supply side economics and the outsourcing, offshoring, free trade aggreements and the dismantling of regulations especially in the financial area that it brings. Reagan and other presidents just had a recessions to deal with and not the "Great Recession of 2008" as the media is now calling it.

A lot of Zuckerman's criticisms have been responded to by the president bringing Jeff Immelt on board. We'll see what happens.

Look no party has an answer for this. The Repubs can only come up with more of the same. And the congress won't allow the current administration to inact the fixes that are needed.

And a third party candidate, please, how could a president from a third party get any support from a congress of Dems and Repubs even if that person had a 100% solution to the problem.

We want a problem that was literally thirty years in the making to end in four. Its not going to happen. no matter who is president and in this hyper-partisan environment its going to take longer to fix than it would normally.

And yes, the president is getting ready to put the Repubs in a major box. He is going to make recommendations in his job plans that doesn't have a snowballs chance of getting passed thru Congress. And after he beats the Repubs over the head with it for a while he will be left with a compromise that will be watered down to the extent that nobody will be really happy with it.

[oladub]

What people either fail to or don't want to realize is that what we are seeing is the result of thirty years of supply side economics and the outsourcing, offshoring, free trade aggreements and the dismantling of regulations especially in the financial area that it brings. Reagan and other presidents just had a recessions to deal with and not the "Great Recession of 2008" as the media is now calling it...


We want a problem that was literally thirty years in the making to end in four. Its not going to happen. no matter who is president and in this hyper-partisan environment its going to take longer to fix than it would normally.

And yes, the president is getting ready to put the Repubs in a major box. He is going to make recommendations in his job plans that doesn't have a snowballs chance of getting passed thru Congress. And after he beats the Repubs over the head with it for a while he will be left with a compromise that will be watered down to the extent that nobody will be really happy with it.

The thirty years of supply side economics, outsourcing, offshoring, free trade aggreements and the dismantling of regulation was aggravated by seventy years of Keynesian economics starting in the Hoover administration. Senator Obama promised to address NAFTA but has instead expanded free trade agreements as President.

No excuses, Harding ended a worse recession in one year by cutting federal spending. Obama had a Democratic House and Senate for two years and the Bush/Obama recession drags on.

He already did the jobs program thing and it flopped. We were told that without Porkulus, unemployment would increase above 7.5%. Why does he have to blame Republicans for his next batch of imaginary programs that have a history of not working? I thought it was all Bush's fault. The country is safer when he is playing golf.

[Gannon]

I think it is cute that the Keynesians still think they can control the Ocean of economics...their experiment was only on a very limited and protected market...when Capitalism still had room to grow.


Growth cannot be the assumtion any longer. Their theory is bunk.

[firstandten]

Something to think about

http://www.truth-out.org/capitalisms-new-era/1313769455

[firstandten]

Again Oladub the only similarity between the recession that Harding fought and the one Obama is fighting is the word recession. The causes were different the fix is different. It's really wonderful how the libertarian/right wing is now championing the cause of one of the most flawed presidents in US history to try and prove the current administration doesn't know what it is doing. At least make a apples to apples comparison.

[Jimaz]

Something to think about

http://www.truth-out.org/capitalisms-new-era/1313769455

Thanks for that.

Since illusions of an economic recovery have now been shattered, it's up to working people to demand that their labor unions and community groups unite to tax the rich and corporations in order to finance a massive jobs program. Fortunately, the AFL-CIO is organizing actions for the first week of October to demand jobs and oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Many within the labor movement are calling for massive demonstrations across the country for October 1. It will take these types of actions to unite working people to fight for a positive solution to the economic crisis.

[oldredfordette]

There are demos for the whole month of October from various groups. You can decide how close to want to get to the democrats or how much actual change you can agitate for.

[oladub]

Again Oladub the only similarity between the recession that Harding fought and the one Obama is fighting is the word recession. The causes were different the fix is different. It's really wonderful how the libertarian/right wing is now championing the cause of one of the most flawed presidents in US history to try and prove the current administration doesn't know what it is doing. At least make a apples to apples comparison.

There was a difference. 1920 recession was worse. The 1921 recession was caused by the war ending and/or the excessive liquidity previously caused by the Federal Reserve. The 2008 crash was largely caused by excessive liquidity created by the Federal Reserve. Keynesianism strikes again.

Harding began his Presidency in 1921.
Unemployment level [[1921-10.2%), [[1922-6.8%), [[1923-3.6%)

Obama began his Presidency in 2009
He inherited an 8.1% unemployment rate, [[2010-9.6%) [[presently-9.1%)

The solutions of Obama and Harding also differed. Harding supported two tariffs on imports., kept us out of wars, controlled immigration, and " reduced government spending by $1.5 billion..., a 25% reduction, along with another 25% reduction the following year. In effect, the Government budget was cut in ½ in just two years." Obama, in contrast, expanded the scope of US wars, expanded 'free' trade, expanded amnesty for illegal aliens, increased federal spending by 19%, and increased the federal debt by 35% by creating more liquidity.

At least "one of the most flawed presidents in US history" put Americans back to work.

[gazhekwe]

Calling Warren Buffett a self-loathing billionaire makes it sound like all anyone cares about is money. 'I have money! It's the only thing I love. There is nothing I love but money. Child? Spouse? Friends? Relatives? Nope to all, I just love money. I don't care what happens to the country. I don't care what happens to everybody's grandchildren including mine. Well, mine will be all right because of course, I have MONEY!'

Pretty sickening and shallow world view.

[Big Dog]

Is that an elephants view? LOL

[rb336]

What people either fail to or don't want to realize is that what we are seeing is the result of thirty years of supply side economics and the outsourcing, offshoring, free trade aggreements and the dismantling of regulations especially in the financial area that it brings. Reagan and other presidents just had a recessions to deal with and not the "Great Recession of 2008" as the media is now calling it.

Guess what? you can't have a vigorous recovery when you don't pay people above a subsistence wage. the thirty-year war on the working class has decimated this nation. There can be no recovery until working people again decide to assert THEIR rights and until we stop kowtowing to the corporate masters and stop treating corporations as "persons"

[Mikeg]

It's kind of hard for Obama to "get a grip on the economy" when all he does is keep putting it on the back burner and then playing the blame game when it bubbles over from more "unexpected" data in the government's monthly economic reports.

From RealClearPolitics:

Battlegrounds of Resentment

......Not so long ago, populist-Democrat rhetoric was popular here [[in Virginia) and farther up the road, in West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Americans along such roads all across the country are struggling economically. They are consumed with uncertainty. And they have tuned-out the president.

Obama had a rocky start with American voters outside major cities almost immediately, according to Chris Kelley, a political science professor at Miami University of Ohio.


“Think back again to 2009 – where did he begin to get in trouble?” Kelley asks. “By engaging in hyper-government activism to reform health care, save the environment, make government transparent, while rarely to never talking about jobs.”


This led many to view him as out-of-touch, disconnected, aloof......


Obama took to pointing fingers when his poll numbers started to slip last fall.

So far, he has blamed the stagnant economy on ATMs, ditches, Slurpees, corporate-jet owners, the Tea Party, Republicans, Japan’s earthquake, the Arab Spring, the Arab Summer, George Bush, and “fat-cat” Wall Street something-or-others. The kitchen sink may be next.......

Click here to read the entire opinion piece by Salena Zito.

[old guy]

There was a difference. 1920 recession was worse. The 1921 recession was caused by the war ending and/or the excessive liquidity previously caused by the Federal Reserve. The 2008 crash was largely caused by excessive liquidity created by the Federal Reserve. Keynesianism strikes again.

Harding began his Presidency in 1921.
Unemployment level [[1921-10.2%), [[1922-6.8%), [[1923-3.6%)

Obama began his Presidency in 2009
He inherited an 8.1% unemployment rate, [[2010-9.6%) [[presently-9.1%)


The solutions of Obama and Harding also differed. Harding supported two tariffs on imports., kept us out of wars, controlled immigration, and " reduced government spending by $1.5 billion..., a 25% reduction, along with another 25% reduction the following year. In effect, the Government budget was cut in ½ in just two years." Obama, in contrast, expanded the scope of US wars, expanded 'free' trade, expanded amnesty for illegal aliens, increased federal spending by 19%, and increased the federal debt by 35% by creating more liquidity.

At least "one of the most flawed presidents in US history" put Americans back to work.

Let's not forget that Harding also pushed the Federal Highway Act of 1921, signed it and then spent 162 million dollars building roads, which in turn helped the economy and cut unemployment. Sounds like a good plan. On another note, the labor movements push to move from a 12 hour work day to an 8 hour day probably didn't hurt the unemployment issue either.

The Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act that you speak so fondly of didn't work well for a lot of Americans and is often [[and in the article you linked to) considered one of the contributing factors of the great Wall Street Crash of 1929.

He also signed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act, the first major federal government social welfare program in the U.S. That was a good thing. And, it's considered by many to be the basis for the New Deal social programs I know you're so fond of.

[firstandten]

There was a difference. 1920 recession was worse. The 1921 recession was caused by the war ending and/or the excessive liquidity previously caused by the Federal Reserve. The 2008 crash was largely caused by excessive liquidity created by the Federal Reserve. Keynesianism strikes again.

Please elaborate on the excessive liquidity. The 1921 recession had interest rates of approx 7% really high interest rates unheard of for that time. And you have at least 4 other causes of that recession. What you didn't have which makes the great recession different is that you did not have the demand deficiency that you will not acknowledge. And because you didn't have that ,fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. That statement was made by Daniel Kuehn who is an economist and doctorial candidate.

I don't want to get into a discussion of which is better Austrian School or Keynesian economics, both have their pluses and minuses. My point was to state that this was not an apples to apples comparison and that you don't necessarily apply the same fix to different recessions.

Also it is very rare that any recession or depression is caused by monetary policy only. There are usually 3.4 or 5 factors which combine to form a perfect storm. The recession of 1921 had at least 5 factors and the great recession had at least as many

[oladub]

Please elaborate on the excessive liquidity. The 1921 recession had interest rates of approx 7% really high interest rates unheard of for that time. And you have at least 4 other causes of that recession. What you didn't have which makes the great recession different is that you did not have the demand deficiency that you will not acknowledge. And because you didn't have that ,fiscal stimulus was unwarranted. That statement was made by Daniel Kuehn who is an economist and doctorial candidate.

I don't want to get into a discussion of which is better Austrian School or Keynesian economics, both have their pluses and minuses. My point was to state that this was not an apples to apples comparison and that you don't necessarily apply the same fix to different recessions.

Also it is very rare that any recession or depression is caused by monetary policy only. There are usually 3.4 or 5 factors which combine to form a perfect storm. The recession of 1921 had at least 5 factors and the great recession had at least as many

Inflation was at 20% in 1918. Inflationary prices are caused by too many dollars chasing too few products. The dollars had to come from somewhere. Who has printed dollars since 1913? That is excess liquidity. Wars temporarily create demand. High 7% interest rates in 1921 suppressed demand.
"To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what today strikes us as incredibly “merciless” policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion—a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922" -freeman Remember that unemployment consequently went down from 10.2% to 3.6%. Cutting the federal budget again by 2/3 would be worth a try.

oldguy, I suspect that blaming tariffs for the depression was a lie embedded in the junior high school history books we all shared. Everyone else was taught the same lie so there is a consensus.The US was founded with tariffs to promote domestic industry. Federal income taxes didn't come along until Woodrow Wilson [[D). They transferred much of the tax burden from import corporations to individual taxpayers. That and the NAFTA type agreements made it more profitable to import products and lay off American workers. Without a demand for US workers, they cannot effectively organize and demand higher wages. Harding restored tariffs while reducing income taxes and he limited immigration to create more demand for US workers. Unions become strong only under such circumstances.

I think that a $121M cost sharing program to build roads is an acceptable compromise with slashing away 2/3 of the federal budget even after adjusting for inflation and our larger population. Here, I figured it out. That would be like $4B today . We could do that if we gave up the wars. Harding also avoided wars.

[Mikeg]

Obama can't get a grip on how to improve the economy because he and his appointees are too busy trying to impose more regulatory burdens on it!

Obama: 7 proposed regs would each top $1 billion

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON [[AP) — President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year..... [read the entire article]

[firstandten]

Obama can't get a grip on how to improve the economy because he and his appointees are too busy trying to impose more regulatory burdens on it!

Obama: 7 proposed regs would each top $1 billion

By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON [[AP) — President Barack Obama says his administration is considering seven new government regulations that would cost the economy more than $1 billion each a year..... [read the entire article]

Yea, those pesky regulations, lets just face it. If we do a cost-benefit analysis its cheaper to have more people with lung cancer, or asthma to clog up our health care system than it is to have the corporations clean up their act and maybe reduce some of those health care costs on the front end.

[Mikeg]

Yea, those pesky regulations, lets just face it. If we do a cost-benefit analysis its cheaper to have more people with lung cancer, or asthma to clog up our health care system than it is to have the corporations clean up their act and maybe reduce some of those health care costs on the front end.

A) During recent testimony at a House of Representatives Subcommittee hearing, an EPA administrator "clearly" explains their regulatory cost-benefit analysis methodology.


B) Yea, more of those pesky regulations:

Green Jobs' Arteries Clogged By Davis-Bacon

By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08/30/2011 05:34 PM ET

President Obama's green jobs agenda has become a victim of its own red tape. Several internal reports show that state-level projects have stalled for years due to federal regulations....... [read the entire article]

[oladub]

Yea, those pesky regulations, lets just face it. If we do a cost-benefit analysis its cheaper to have more people with lung cancer, or asthma to clog up our health care system than it is to have the corporations clean up their act and maybe reduce some of those health care costs on the front end.

Those pesky regulations chase manufacturing off to countries with even lower regulations. A deeper cost analysis might reveal consequent spikes of lung cancer and asthma in those foreign populations. Tariff barriers might offset that result. Then we could regulate ourselves all we want although our standard of living would be lower because of more expensive products, energy, cars, etc.. The next problem is what do we have to give up to accommodate a lower standard of living; medicine, vacations? I'm not against all regulations but we have to realize that there are unintended consequences and other things have to be balanced.

[firstandten]

A) During recent testimony at a House of Representatives Subcommittee hearing, an EPA administrator "clearly" explains their regulatory cost-benefit analysis methodology.


B) Yea, more of those pesky regulations:

Green Jobs' Arteries Clogged By Davis-Bacon

By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 08/30/2011 05:34 PM ET

President Obama's green jobs agenda has become a victim of its own red tape. Several internal reports show that state-level projects have stalled for years due to federal regulations....... [read the entire article]

As usual when it comes to right wing talking points there is " the story behind the story"

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-ap...ecord-straight

Given that this was a House of Representative sub-committee meeting the EPA official should have had his hand slapped for not anticipating an ambush and given a better performance.

More importantly, you can create jobs like crazy if you have few if any regulations. Guess what however, chances are you won't enjoy your golden years, that is if you even make it that long, Chances are your golden years will be filled with illness and premature death due to cancers and other illnesses. Because in corporations cost-benefit analysis your cost of getting cancer, doesn't outweigh the corporations profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...xwpJ_blog.html

[Mikeg]

As usual when it comes to right wing talking points there is " the story behind the story"

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-ap...ecord-straight

Given that this was a House of Representative sub-committee meeting the EPA official should have had his hand slapped for not anticipating an ambush and given a better performance.

More importantly, you can create jobs like crazy if you have few if any regulations. Guess what however, chances are you won't enjoy your golden years, that is if you even make it that long, Chances are your golden years will be filled with illness and premature death due to cancers and other illnesses. Because in corporations cost-benefit analysis your cost of getting cancer, doesn't outweigh the corporations profits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...xwpJ_blog.html

I suppose this Executive Order is also a "right wing talking point" and that is why the EPA ignored it? That EPA administrator needs to be fired, not "hand-slapped".

Your repeatedly use the phrase "chances are". How about providing a number for those odds so we can put it in perspective?

[Papasito]

Obama's gonna fix the economy!
He just needs to spend more money!

[firstandten]

I suppose this Executive Order is also a "right wing talking point" and that is why the EPA ignored it? That EPA administrator needs to be fired, not "hand-slapped".

The executive order is not a right wing talking point, if you read the link I posted it gives the reason the EPA "ignored" it.

“jobs analysis” wasn’t required or necessary because the projected costs of the coal ash rule are so small. Following Office of Management and Budget guidance in effect since 1995, such an analysis is only conducted when the cost of a proposed rule reaches 0.25 to 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product [[GDP). To trigger an analysis, the rule’s cost would have to reach $36 billion to $72 billion of the 2008 GDP of $14.42 trillion"

Your repeatedly use the phrase "chances are". How about providing a number for those odds so we can put it in perspective?

I'll let you decide if the odds are acceptable thats an individual choice. Some people like to play russian roulette others walking across a crowded street is too risky. Empirically you heard of the stories of the foul working conditions the asbestos, the black lung disease, polluted water etc. Both you and I know the EPA and FDA and other agencies didn't arrive out of thin air. There was a need for it and still is.

The key and what Obama is doing especially if you read the executive order is to balance the need for jobs with the health and safety of its workers.

Jobs have been leaving this country for a long time [[at least 30+ years). Yes we need jobs, and we will get jobs back but your not going to turn a 30 year phenomenon around in 4 years and we don't need to risk the health and safety of the workers in our rush to get back to full employment.