Obama - a failed presidency?

[oladub]

Personally, If America has to shell out $1+ trillion on "economic stimulus" plans that we didn't ask for, I think we want [[and deserve) our monies' worth! Results, please.
Things are no better now then when that joke of leslation was passed.

Papasito, How can you say such a thing? Why, just this week, an $800,000 expenditure was revealed. Don't you see how things like this stimulate the US economy?

Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program

GP writes, "Are you claiming this is causation, or merely correlation? If the former, perhaps you should cite the specific actions taken by the Obama administration that were direct causes of the results you trumpet."

Both. Running up a $1.7T debt. Bush was responsible for some of this too. In his last year in office, which was over 18 months ago, he ran up a $576B debt. It didn't work for him either. Spending US taxpayer dollars importing Korean cars and studying African genital washing habits were great economic strokes to put Americans back to work though.

[Papasito]

How can I obstruct the President's agenda when
1) I am not a politician in Washington
2) The legislation is passed
3) I am incapable of obstructing the President's agenda

Specific goal would be : Fix the Economy
That was the goal the Current Administration had when they told us they wanted to pass the stimulus. That goal was not achieved by passing the stimulus. There's nothing to debate here. They said it would fix the economy, and it didn't.

Furthermore, they said the majority of stimulus funds would not be spent until 2010-2012.
Where is that money? They are already pushing bills for new billions when they haven't even finished spending the old ones!

just because he has a "D" after his name

Don't be so quick to assume. I voted Bush I out and Clinton in.
I don't mind voting for a Democrat if he [[or she) is the better candidate.
Obama is no Clinton.

[maxx]

Oladub:
The genital washing program sounds silly on the surface, but if you read the article it is actually part of a larger program of HIV prevention in Africa.

Papsito: That was the goal the Current Administration had when they told us they wanted to pass the stimulus. That goal was not achieved by passing the stimulus. There's nothing to debate here. They said it would fix the economy, and it didn't.

The Stimulus stopped the free-fall that our economy was in when Obama came to office. Something else to consider: the years 2000 to 2009 are being called the "lost decade" because of the record loss of income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_720427.html
"...The inflation-adjusted income of the median household--smack in the middle of the populace--fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%." [Census figures]

[oladub]

Oladub:
The genital washing program sounds silly on the surface, but if you read the article it is actually part of a larger program of HIV prevention in Africa.

The Stimulus stopped the free-fall that our economy was in when Obama came to office. Something else to consider: the years 2000 to 2009 are being called the "lost decade" because of the record loss of income.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_720427.html
"...The inflation-adjusted income of the median household--smack in the middle of the populace--fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009, even worse than the 1970s, when median income rose 1.9% despite high unemployment and inflation. Between 2007 and 2009, incomes fell 4.2%." [Census figures]

You can defend the Obama's genital washing program all you want but it is a waste of $800,000 as far as putting Americans back to work. It is one of the many reasons Porkulus failed and is symptomatic of the economic incompetency of the Obama administration. Sure you can print all the money you want, spread it around, and it puts off the main problem for awhile. If I borrowed lots of money from the bank I could put on a show of prosperity too at least until the loans came due. We were promised by administration officials that if Porkulus didn't pass, unemployment might go above 8.5%. So even by the administration's own standards, Porkulus is a failure. One way or another, the bad debts have to be liquidated before the economy can do anything but flounder. The Fed's excessive liquidity created bubbles which always break. Obama's solution is to give more power to the Fed and create more liquidity. He undermined our currency and our financial solvency without improving the economy.

Yeah, Bush was bad but what's Obama done bring the jobs back home? Giving Americans money to buy Korean cars wasn't the answer.

This is so good, I'm going to post it again. Maxx's idea of a shovel ready project to put Americans back to work.Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program

[1KielsonDrive]

You can defend the Obama's genital washing program all you want but it is a waste of $800,000 as far as putting Americans back to work. It is one of the many reasons Porkulus failed and is symptomatic of the economic incompetency of the Obama administration. Sure you can print all the money you want, spread it around, and it puts off the main problem for awhile. If I borrowed lots of money from the bank I could put on a show of prosperity too at least until the loans came due. We were promised by administration officials that if Porkulus didn't pass, unemployment might go above 8.5%. So even by the administration's own standards, Porkulus is a failure. One way or another, the bad debts have to be liquidated before the economy can do anything but flounder. The Fed's excessive liquidity created bubbles which always break. Obama's solution is to give more power to the Fed and create more liquidity. He undermined our currency and our financial solvency without improving the economy.

Yeah, Bush was bad but what's Obama done bring the jobs back home? Giving Americans money to buy Korean cars wasn't the answer.

This is so good, I'm going to post it again. Maxx's idea of a shovel ready project to put Americans back to work.Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program

Even if this program is true, you act like no president in history has ever served in office while legislation for some whacky program got by him and was enacted into law. C'mon.

[ghettopalmetto]

That $800,000 pales in comparison to the no-bid profits that Blackwater's mercenaries made for doing jobs in Iraq for which our military is perfectly capable. At least the $800,000 is *helping* someone.

[maxx]

And a lot of the Stimulus money went to the states and agencies for them to determine how to spend. The Stimulus wasn't just to create jobs but to preserve jobs. The Bush admin. had already dedicated the U.S. to assisting with HIV programs in Africa.

[oladub]

And a lot of the Stimulus money went to the states and agencies for them to determine how to spend. The Stimulus wasn't just to create jobs but to preserve jobs. The Bush admin. had already dedicated the U.S. to assisting with HIV programs in Africa.

No, no. The stimulus money was supposed to create jobs. Otherwise, we were warned, the unemployment rate would exceed 8.5%. By the administrations own benchmark, Porkulus failed. Your economic thinking is a bit fuzzy on this because the problem which stimulus money was dedicated to fix was US unemployment. There are other lines in the federal budget for foreign aid. If Obama wants foreign aid to be spent teaching foreigners hygeine, it should have come out of the existing foreign aid budget. Porkulus was supposed to be about putting Americans back to work. This is a wonderful example of why the Obama administration should not be entrusted with money. The money was not spent for it's intended purpose. There are other budget catagories that already deal with foreign aid.

$350,000 of Porkulus money was also set aside to advertise, or propogandize, how well Porkulus is working. But now you have moved the goal line so that for Porkulus to succeed, it no longer has to prevent unemployment from going undeer 8.5%. Now we can just say that it 'saved jobs'.

1KielsonDrive, Yes, other president have done screwey things too but this thread is titled Obama - a failed presidency?

gp, Right, Blackwater was a worse expenditure under Bush than using jobs money to teach basic hygeine to foreigners under Obama but how do Bush expenditures for Blackwater fall within the context of the Obama - a failed presidency?thread? This absurd use of jobs money only amounts to a couple of cents spending per American but multiply it by thousands of decisions made by the same people and we have a $1.7T budget deficit to bequeath to our children. You get the hope and the kids get the chains. I get your point though. A better apple to apples example might be that the amount we are spending required to expand the illegal war in Afghanistan is much greater than the cost of the hygeine study. Both would fall under the catagory of Obama - a failed presidency? .

[ghettopalmetto]

]No, no. The stimulus money was supposed to create jobs. Otherwise, we were warned, the unemployment rate would exceed 8.5%. By the administrations own benchmark, Porkulus failed.

I don't remember the exact percentage, but something like 40% of the initial stimulus package was in the form of tax cuts. Bear that in mind when the GOP pushes it's universal "Tax Cuts Fix Everything" policy in their campaigns this fall. If you ask me, the money spent on tax cuts would have been better spent on infrastructure projects--roads, rails, sewers, electrical grid, water supply--and a new program not unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps. Of course, such largesse these days amounts to "socialism"--better to give tax cuts so that folks have an extra $50 a month to spend on Chinese-made goods at the Walmart.

Pray tell, Oladub, what would the unemployment rate be right now without the stimulus package???

[1KielsonDrive]

That $800,000 pales in comparison to the no-bid profits that Blackwater's mercenaries made for doing jobs in Iraq for which our military is perfectly capable. At least the $800,000 is *helping* someone.

Absolutely correct.

[1KielsonDrive]

No, no. The stimulus money was supposed to create jobs. Otherwise, we were warned, the unemployment rate would exceed 8.5%. By the administrations own benchmark, Porkulus failed. Your economic thinking is a bit fuzzy on this because the problem which stimulus money was dedicated to fix was US unemployment. There are other lines in the federal budget for foreign aid. If Obama wants foreign aid to be spent teaching foreigners hygeine, it should have come out of the existing foreign aid budget. Porkulus was supposed to be about putting Americans back to work. This is a wonderful example of why the Obama administration should not be entrusted with money. The money was not spent for it's intended purpose. There are other budget catagories that already deal with foreign aid.

$350,000 of Porkulus money was also set aside to advertise, or propogandize, how well Porkulus is working. But now you have moved the goal line so that for Porkulus to succeed, it no longer has to prevent unemployment from going undeer 8.5%. Now we can just say that it 'saved jobs'.

1KielsonDrive, Yes, other president have done screwey things too but this thread is titled Obama - a failed presidency?

gp, Right, Blackwater was a worse expenditure under Bush than using jobs money to teach basic hygeine to foreigners under Obama but how do Bush expenditures for Blackwater fall within the context of the Obama - a failed presidency?thread? This absurd use of jobs money only amounts to a couple of cents spending per American but multiply it by thousands of decisions made by the same people and we have a $1.7T budget deficit to bequeath to our children. You get the hope and the kids get the chains. I get your point though. A better apple to apples example might be that the amount we are spending required to expand the illegal war in Afghanistan is much greater than the cost of the hygeine study. Both would fall under the catagory of Obama - a failed presidency? .

So you're saying we can't discuss/debate anything else on this thread? Not even in the context of the title? Bunk! You don't make the rules. I created this thread and I say go at it. As pissed as I am at Obama, Bush was many orders of magnitude worse. My main point in all of this is that Obama isn't a great president and is in fact, a great disappointment. Say whatever you like.

[oladub]

I don't remember the exact percentage, but something like 40% of the initial stimulus package was in the form of tax cuts. Bear that in mind when the GOP pushes it's universal "Tax Cuts Fix Everything" policy in their campaigns this fall. If you ask me, the money spent on tax cuts would have been better spent on infrastructure projects--roads, rails, sewers, electrical grid, water supply--and a new program not unlike the Civilian Conservation Corps. Of course, such largesse these days amounts to "socialism"--better to give tax cuts so that folks have an extra $50 a month to spend on Chinese-made goods at the Walmart.

Pray tell, Oladub, what would the unemployment rate be right now without the stimulus package???

gp, You ask the wrong question. You should be asking what the unemployment rate would be if the Federal Reserve hadn't created the Nasdaq and housing bubbles which burst. Instead, you ask how much worse the hangover would have been if Bush and Obama didn't bill our kids for another round of drinks to make everyone feel better.

1KielsonDrive, I was responding to your previous statement but, for the record, Bush should be in jail now for his performance as President. He was running something like an annual $575B annual deficit before leaving office partly because of an illegal war he started. But to get this back on topic, Obama has tripled Bush's annual deficit and extended undeclared wars.

[ghettopalmetto]

gp, You ask the wrong question. You should be asking what the unemployment rate would be if the Federal Reserve hadn't created the Nasdaq and housing bubbles which burst. Instead, you ask how much worse the hangover would have been if Bush and Obama didn't bill our kids for another round of drinks to make everyone feel better.

You don't get to decide if I'm asking the "right" question or not. It's the correct fucking question. Stop bullshitting.

You sure use a lot of words to make excuses for yourself, don't you?

No one told individual investors to dump all their cash into tech stocks in the misguided idea that they were bulletproof. Likewise, no one told individual homebuyers to finance more home than they could afford, in the misguided idea that home values would increase ad infinitum. If you're going to talk the "personal responsibility" talk, you can't very well blame its failures on a quasi-government entity, can you? While the Fed may have made money cheap, there are plenty of people who knew that incomes weren't keeping up with home prices, and didn't buy into the trap. The Fed wasn't exactly forcing people to buy McMansions at gunpoint.

[maxx]

No, no. The stimulus money was supposed to create jobs. Otherwise, we were warned, the unemployment rate would exceed 8.5%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle..._b_510779.html
"...
In a report issued this week, it appears that federal stimulus funds may have saved half a million teacher jobs nationwide and somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 in California.
In January 2009, it was feared that as many as 600,000 education jobs, mostly teachers, would be lost as a result of the worst recession in decades. Calculations from preliminary data suggest that the number of job losses is closer 87,000.."
If the Stimulus package kept thousands of teachers from losing their jobs, that also has an effect on the unemployment rate. I have to laugh at conservatives who point to the Obama admin.'s unemployment prediction after the mess they left us in. Neo-conservatives aren't interested in government succeeding at anything. They follow Grover Norquist's idea of weakening gov. so they can drown it in the bathtub. Then what's left but the complete control by businesses and a sham democracy?

Yeah, Bush was bad but what's Obama done bring the jobs back home? Giving Americans money to buy Korean cars wasn't the answer.

The W admin. was horrendous for the average American. The Republicans had complete control of the gov. for 6 years, and they wrecked the economy. So now you expect Obama to just wave a wand and all is restored prior to W? Get real. Wars are more easily started than stopped. Our competition in manufacturing is the third world where people earn about a dollar a day. And if Americans preferred to buy Korean cars, that's something for the American car industry to worry about.

[oladub]

You don't get to decide if I'm asking the "right" question or not. It's the correct fucking question. Stop bullshitting.

You sure use a lot of words to make excuses for yourself, don't you?

No one told individual investors to dump all their cash into tech stocks in the misguided idea that they were bulletproof. Likewise, no one told individual homebuyers to finance more home than they could afford, in the misguided idea that home values would increase ad infinitum. If you're going to talk the "personal responsibility" talk, you can't very well blame its failures on a quasi-government entity, can you? While the Fed may have made money cheap, there are plenty of people who knew that incomes weren't keeping up with home prices, and didn't buy into the trap. The Fed wasn't exactly forcing people to buy McMansions at gunpoint.

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). Economic bubbles always burst. Since economic bubbles, caused by the Fed preceeded the 1921 Depression, the 1929 depression, and the recent Nasdaq and housing collapses, the question is why do we keep allowing the Fed to unconstitutionally contol our monetary policy and having the same thing happen to us.

Harding did next to nothing in response to the 1921 depression resulting in the economy righting itself after two years. Hoover/Roosevelt and Bush/Obama instead added fuel to the liquidity crises by adding more liquidity and not, for instance, allowing mega-banks go out of business. So now retirees get about 1% interest on their savings while Goldman-Sachs executives get increased bonuses. President Obama, under the cover of Christmas Eve, transferred huge bank debts to taxpayers. You guys fancy yourselves to be for the common man but are on the side of the rich at most turns despite your rhetoric.

You have a slave mentality which asks for the crumbs from Master's table instead of asking how Master stole everything in the first place whether the subject is health care, banking and eventually food cost. Really, you can have thoughts of your own outside of what your 9th grade history teacher told you.

[oladub]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charle..._b_510779.html
"...
In a report issued this week, it appears that federal stimulus funds may have saved half a million teacher jobs nationwide and somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 in California.
In January 2009, it was feared that as many as 600,000 education jobs, mostly teachers, would be lost as a result of the worst recession in decades. Calculations from preliminary data suggest that the number of job losses is closer 87,000.."
If the Stimulus package kept thousands of teachers from losing their jobs, that also has an effect on the unemployment rate. I have to laugh at conservatives who point to the Obama admin.'s unemployment prediction after the mess they left us in. Neo-conservatives aren't interested in government succeeding at anything. They follow Grover Norquist's idea of weakening gov. so they can drown it in the bathtub. Then what's left but the complete control by businesses and a sham democracy?

The W admin. was horrendous for the average American. The Republicans had complete control of the gov. for 6 years, and they wrecked the economy. So now you expect Obama to just wave a wand and all is restored prior to W? Get real. Wars are more easily started than stopped. Our competition in manufacturing is the third world where people earn about a dollar a day. And if Americans preferred to buy Korean cars, that's something for the American car industry to worry about.

Some states are managed better than others. People get what they vote for. Californians vote for everything so California it is now effectively bankrupt. It is not the problem of people in Utah and North Dakota that Californians were foolish. But, voila!, President Obama borrows money from China or otherwise prints money and bills it to our kids. Then he gives it to school teacher unions in blue states as a pay off for their support.

Supporting local school districts or teachers' unions isn't even a delegated power of the federal government according to the 10th Amendment. Why isn't California paying for it's own school teachers? Cut their pay if necessary until the economy heals. You always seem to forget that we also have state and local governments.

Here in Wisconsin, we have a money spending fool of a Governor. He has had to implement hospital taxes and nursing home taxes to pay for his Spanish trains and other programs. However, I do not expect, or even want, President Obama to pump money into the state. The answer is to replace this fool Governor in November. Why should people in Michigan and other states have to pay for Wisconsin's Spanish trains?

Again, the Obama administration said that if Porkulus wasn't passed, unemployment would exceed 8.5%. Now he is trying to peddle the program as a program designed to make things not as bad as they otherwise would have been. How can anyone fall for such revisionism? My patient is still dying but I have kept him alive for another month. Yippee. For instance, when the claim is made that Porkulus saved 600,000 jobs, assuming the numbers to be correct, does that include the future damage to the economy when these costs have to be repaid? No, it' is as stupid of a statement is saying that I am now rich because I just borrowed money from the bank.

[jiminnm]

Thought you might like this oladub, LA gets $111 million and 55 jobs.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues...y-55-Jobs.aspx

Here in NM, our illustrious Gov Richardson announced that $2.8 million of stimulus funds would be use to buy 12,000 acres of land for a state park. I'm sure that the Nature Conservancy, the current owner, will create hundreds of jobs from that. This comes on the heels of an announcement that $100K of stimulus money would be used to fund a contraception program for wild horses in the state. I guess those huge rubbers are expensive, but at least the latex workers will be busy.

[1KielsonDrive]

[quote=oladub;182648]gp, You ask the wrong question. You should be asking what the unemployment rate would be if the Federal Reserve hadn't created the Nasdaq and housing bubbles which burst. Instead, you ask how much worse the hangover would have been if Bush and Obama didn't bill our kids for another round of drinks to make everyone feel better.

1KielsonDrive, I was responding to your previous statement but, for the record, Bush should be in jail now for his performance as President. He was running something like an annual $575B annual deficit before leaving office partly because of an illegal war he started. But to get this back on topic, Obama has tripled Bush's annual deficit and extended undeclared wars.[/quote]
We do agree on some things and obviously disagree on others. I fault Obama for not creating a larger package at the outset. I don't blame the housing problems on the mortgage holders, in general. Most were doing what the 'experts' in our amazingly smart corporate culture recommended and encouraged. Corporations got off scott free and the little guy got stuck. From housing, to the stock market, to banking, to credit ratings, to jobs, to unemployment compensation, to medical coverage, to schools, to city budgets, etc, etc, etc, the little guy, the backbone of our society, got stuck. And they're still getting stuck. Obama has not one ounce of concern for the little guy. He's guilty of impersonating a leader.

[maxx]

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.

[oladub]

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.

maxx, You might consider trick or treating this year as one of the Koch brothers. Don't forget to check under your bed in case they are hiding there. I would be fine with the federal government getting largely out of the housing business and , during the interum, only participating in loans in which the buyer provides a 30% downpayment and putting a $200,000 cap on federal loans. That way there would be less room for mischeif and people who can't afford a house wouldn't be getting themselves into such messes. I blame both Republicans and Democrats for the mess they collectively made with almost anything connected with housing.

[1KielsonDrive]

maxx, You might consider trick or treating this year as one of the Koch brothers. Don't forget to check under your bed in case they are hiding there. I would be fine with the federal government getting largely out of the housing business and , during the interum, only participating in loans in which the buyer provides a 30% downpayment and putting a $200,000 cap on federal loans. That way there would be less room for mischeif and people who can't afford a house wouldn't be getting themselves into such messes. I blame both Republicans and Democrats for the mess they collectively made with almost anything connected with housing.

Good points. But remember there was 50 years of relentless talk, promotions, policies and legislation promoted by banks, corporations and politicians, aimed at encouraging citizens to participate in the housing market. It was touted as 'Building Wealth'. Many people fell for it. Not just those who couldn't afford a home.

[oladub]

Good points. But remember there was 50 years of relentless talk, promotions, policies and legislation promoted by banks, corporations and politicians, aimed at encouraging citizens to participate in the housing market. It was touted as 'Building Wealth'. Many people fell for it. Not just those who couldn't afford a home.

True, "A Fool And His Money Are Easily Parted" and "There's a sucker born every minute" but when customers are lied to and products are misrepresented, the sales people have to be taken to task. Bankers have ripped off the government too.

[maxx]

Economist Niall Ferguson on the Obama admin.'s economic policies and their outcome.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know...-economy/3843/


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..."

[mjs]

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). Economic bubbles always burst. Since economic bubbles, caused by the Fed preceeded the 1921 Depression, the 1929 depression, and the recent Nasdaq and housing collapses, the question is why do we keep allowing the Fed to unconstitutionally contol our monetary policy and having the same thing happen to us.

Harding did next to nothing in response to the 1921 depression resulting in the economy righting itself after two years. Hoover/Roosevelt and Bush/Obama instead added fuel to the liquidity crises by adding more liquidity and not, for instance, allowing mega-banks go out of business. So now retirees get about 1% interest on their savings while Goldman-Sachs executives get increased bonuses. President Obama, under the cover of Christmas Eve, transferred huge bank debts to taxpayers. You guys fancy yourselves to be for the common man but are on the side of the rich at most turns despite your rhetoric.

You have a slave mentality which asks for the crumbs from Master's table instead of asking how Master stole everything in the first place whether the subject is health care, banking and eventually food cost. Really, you can have thoughts of your own outside of what your 9th grade history teacher told you.

Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.

[1KielsonDrive]

Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.

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.