The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

nobody is saying you can't question Obama's decisions, I don't agree with everything he's done.  But rooting for him to fail is rooting for America to fail.   Not very patroitic now is it?

No its not. If I believe that America is better off with lesser Gov't influence then how am I unpatriotic? The only department in which I hope Obama doesnt fail, even though I probably will end up disagreeing with his forein policies, is the war on Terror and homeland security. I will root for him to prevail in that area. Other then that I hope he and this big bubble pops.

Which essentially means you're hoping for the COUNTRY to fail, which..by it's very definition..is unpatriotic.  You can try to wiggle out of it, but it is what it is. 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you have to be 100% patriotic all the time.  Patriotism can be a double edged sword.  But I can tell you that I think hoping for your country to fail is both crappy and counterproductive.

Again, you can disagree with Obama.  You can disagree with what he's doing or has done.   You can think he's wrong.  NONE Of that is the same as actively "rooting" for him to fail, which is what you say you're doing.

Let's put this in the context of the surge in Iraq.  You may think it's a bad idea (before it's enacted).  You may work your hardest to ensure that it does not become policy.  But if it does become policy then, yes, rooting against it is unpatriotic.  It's unpatriotic because the surge failing means more dead Americans.  It means more dead Iraqis (not necessarily patriotism, but certainly not something I'd wish for).  Fighting against Obama's policies before hand is fine.  After the fact, wishing for them to fail and knowing that such failure will inevitably hurt your fellow Americans (and quite likely hurt them badly) is bad form, just as it would be to root for the deaths of our troops, so that you can say that the surge and Bush have failed.  Despite my dislike of the war in Iraq, I never once wished harm on our troops, just to validate my own opinion. 

[SLCPUNK]

Socialism....give me a break.

This is the new buzz word.

"Weapons of mass destruction" just doesn't have the same effect anymore.

Just like WMD they'll come up empty handed with this too.

[younggunner]

Interesting you'd ask him to be more transparent when Bush was as "non-transparent" a president as there ever was.

Obama was the one saying he would change that. So far he hasnt.

) It creates jobs
2) Which gives people more money to spend
3) Which creates more jobs in ancillary services, retail
4) Which gives people more money to spend
5) Which creates more jobs in the management sector
6) Which gives people more money to spend
And so on, and so forth...
And at the end, we're left with better infrastructure to handle the (you'd hope) increased needs for it.  Better bridges that hold greater weight limits so you can haul more goods over them.  Better electric grids to carry more (better/cleaner) power to the new businesses/homes/customers.  That kinda stuff. 

This isn't rocket science...it's pretty basic economics, and it's not exactly "crackpot/leading edge" theorizing.

Short term?  Where we are, there is no "short term".  There isn't anything anyone can do that will end this recession within the next 30 to 90 days.  We MIGHT start seeing recovery in 6 to 9 months...best case scenario.

Your right, this is basic economics. But what you are describing doesnt work. The government cannot create wealth. That is a known fact. Basic economics tells me that for every dollar the government spends on bridges, etc it will take away from somewhere else. Private spending creates wealth. If you take it away long term wealth diminishes.

Tax cuts should be permanent not temporary. These policies are put in so that the government has more control over us. Nationalization means less choices. Less choices means government control. Government control means less risk taking and growth. thats pretty basic if you ask me.

As for the short term. If I remember, all I have heard from Obama is that we are in a crisis and we need to act fast. If thats the case why are we not spending it fast? The whole point of passing the bill is to help the economy right now.

think he's uniquely qualified to make that statement, actually.  And it's one I happen to agree with, for the most part.  He didn't tell Rush (or others) to stop disagreeing.  He didn't tell Rush (or others) to stop dissenting.

The fairness doctrine/ local content stuff is unacceptable...

Katrina was pretty much the final straw for him.

and rightfully so

Which essentially means you're hoping for the COUNTRY to fail, which..by it's very definition..is unpatriotic.  You can try to wiggle out of it, but it is what it is. 

Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that you have to be 100% patriotic all the time.  Patriotism can be a double edged sword.  But I can tell you that I think hoping for your country to fail is both crappy and counterproductive.

Again, you can disagree with Obama.  You can disagree with what he's doing or has done.   You can think he's wrong.  NONE Of that is the same as actively "rooting" for him to fail, which is what you say you're doing

If I disagree with Obamas policies and plans then why would I want to see it work? If I dont think they are going to work int he first place. Im not rooting for him to fail. Im just saying I dont think he is the Chosen One and everything he says or does will work. Not saying you do either. But the vast majority that you talk about are on that wavelength.

But I don't know why you'd program a conservative pundit against Hannity or O'Reilly in the evening.  Doesn't seem to make good sense from a programming scheduling perspective.

It doesnt make sense if you have a one track mind. I think it makes sense because I rather listen to a liberal and a conservative rather than too much of one. This way its easier to form your own opinion on the issues at hand. Im sure you agree with that.

[pilferk]

Interesting you'd ask him to be more transparent when Bush was as "non-transparent" a president as there ever was.

Obama was the one saying he would change that. So far he hasnt.

In the SEVEN days since he's been in office, he's STILL been more up front and transparent than Bush was during his terms.  But MORE transparent doesn not mean COMPLETELY transparent.

Your right, this is basic economics. But what you are describing doesnt work. The government cannot create wealth. That is a known fact. Basic economics tells me that for every dollar the government spends on bridges, etc it will take away from somewhere else. Private spending creates wealth. If you take it away long term wealth diminishes.

Yes, government spending is, ultimately, a zero sum equation.  But it's an equation that can certainly be manipulated to be of greatest effect to address whatever the current issue/crisis facing our country is.

And yes, LONG term (very long) you can't base your entire economy on government spending, because you're using your tax base to fund it.  But we're talking about stimulating a recovery, not depending on government spending FOREVER.  Government spending CAN stimulate an economic recovery...in fact, it has done so to great effect in the past.  It's akin to a jump start, so that you can ultimately stimulate private spending.  If you read the outline I provided above, it doesn't say any different.  Eventually, the government's projects are done...but you'd expect those in that type of job to still be able to find work, readily, because construction, trade work,  and expansion will have begun, again, as the economy starts to grow.

You seem to lack the basic understanding of what the program is and isn't....at least from your descriptions here.  Maybe that's the problem....I don't know.  In any event, you asked for an explanation, and you got one.

Tax cuts should be permanent not temporary.

Tax cuts should be whatever they need to be so we can pay "our" bills, and keep our populace working and productive.  Like anything else, they need to be adaptable as situations warrant.  If those getting the tax breaks are simply hoarding the money, and NOT pumping it back into the economy....of what benefit is that to most of the country (you know, the majority of the population, to which our government is ultimately answerable to)?  Wouldn't it be better to put that money to good use actually CREATING jobs..if it's apparent those getting the tax breaks aren't going to do it?  At least for the short term, until spending that money once again becomes "in the best interests" of the "rich guy"?

Trust me:  You don't REALLY want the "survival of the fittest" scenario that your theory would lead to.....

These policies are put in so that the government has more control over us. Nationalization means less choices. Less choices means government control. Government control means less risk taking and growth. thats pretty basic if you ask me.

To you, or rather in your perception.  But realize a few things:

A) There is contrary opinion out there that is no less well founded than yours.  The country has largely followed YOUR "opinion" for the past 8 years....and it's not worked out very well. 

B)  There is a difference between "government control" (you know, like what Bush did at the end of his term in relation to buyouts and bailouts) and government INVOLVEMENT.  When the economy is in the shitter, you want the 2nd, because they're the only entity large enough (and solvent enough) to kickstart things.  Which is why you focus on infrastructure, since those things (roads, bridges, etc) are usually the purview of the federal and state governments ANYWAY. 

C) Nobody is espousing socialism, which is what you're insinuating/assuming this program will be.  On the contrary, it's a relatively quick infusion of cash and goods into the system with very little long term government involvement outside of the agencies, projects, and issues they're regularly involved in.

As for the short term. If I remember, all I have heard from Obama is that we are in a crisis and we need to act fast. If thats the case why are we not spending it fast? The whole point of passing the bill is to help the economy right now.

Fast action does not mean fast results.  The longer you wait, the more fiscally insolvent many of the other businesses and entities become.  If they fail, rebuilding the economy takes longer.  That doesn't mean you expect to see results overnight...

Again, EVERY economist is saying 6 to 9 months, minimum, before we see any sort of recovery.  And they're all saying that's the best case scenario.

The fairness doctrine/ local content stuff is unacceptable...

I agree, but I also think it's unlikely to ever come to pass.  It's being used as a conservative talking point, IMHO, rather than anything else. 

and rightfully so

Katrina was indicative of much of what was wrong with Bush's administration.  It was just demonstrated on such a macro scale, you could no longer avoid noticing it.

If I disagree with Obamas policies and plans then why would I want to see it work? If I dont think they are going to work int he first place. Im not rooting for him to fail. Im just saying I dont think he is the Chosen One and everything he says or does will work. Not saying you do either. But the vast majority that you talk about are on that wavelength.

Because you don't want to see our country fail, and decend into worse shape than it is now over the next 4 years.

Because there is a difference between disagreement and failure.  You can disagree, but want to see the country do well (no matter who ultimately makes the decisions) or you can want to be on "the winning team", no matter what the costs.  I can disagree with you, but not want to see you get hit by a bus, or lose your ability to post to the internet, or have some other catestrophic failure in your life/profession linked to you posting your opinions or living your life style.  There is s fundamental difference, there....

This is an easy concept, really.  It's pretty cut and dried.

It doesnt make sense if you have a one track mind. I think it makes sense because I rather listen to a liberal and a conservative rather than too much of one. This way its easier to form your own opinion on the issues at hand. Im sure you agree with that.

I think you misunderstand.  That wasn't my point (although I agree....multiple viewpoints is important):

If you're MSNBC, and you have Joe (who's a pretty good ratings draw), you have 2 choices:

Morning news

Evening prime time.

If you program him during the evening, he's "competing", ratings wise, with O'Reilly and/or Hannity.  They have a built in audience, and you're unlikely to "steal" the conservatives away from those two juggernauts, or FoxNews, during those time slots.  So, instead, you counterprogram with liberal commentators, to satisfy the piece of the audience that exists that's NOT catered to by O'Reilly and/or Hannity.

Then you put Joe on in the AM, since Fox's conservative offereings (and CNN's offerings in general) are a lot weaker, and you can maybe cannibalize some of that audience.  Granted, you're competing with things like the Today Show, etc...but I'm not sure the real "politico" audience is all that interested in those shows 99% of the time.

[freedom78]

The government cannot create wealth. That is a known fact. Basic economics tells me that for every dollar the government spends on bridges, etc it will take away from somewhere else. Private spending creates wealth. If you take it away long term wealth diminishes.

And, vice versa, for every dollar the government doesn't spend on important projects, we wait for private industry to do it...but right now they aren't spending!  How much time do we have?  As far as creating wealth goes, I think it's also worth noting that private spending also creates bankruptcy an exorbitant amount of the time.  Lots of businesses fail and we punish them for failing.  It's nice that one guy has the right idea at the right time, but many others do not and go broke because of it.  But stratification is the conservative creed, I suppose, so no biggie.

Tax cuts should be permanent not temporary. These policies are put in so that the government has more control over us. Nationalization means less choices. Less choices means government control. Government control means less risk taking and growth. thats pretty basic if you ask me.

Indeed.  Permanent tax cuts.  Let's make sure the hoarders have something to hoard so that they can sit out our pending collapse in luxury and comfort. 

People need jobs.  Rich people are currently firing, not hiring.  But, on the plus side, there's a lot that needs fixin' and plenty of people to do it.  If by cutting taxes we get people back in jobs, then that's great, but by spending we put them in jobs AND get something we need (infrastructure development, for example). 

As for the short term. If I remember, all I have heard from Obama is that we are in a crisis and we need to act fast. If thats the case why are we not spending it fast? The whole point of passing the bill is to help the economy right now.

You don't give a man a year's pay on day one.  Projects that are ready to go will get money that will then be paid to workers over time. 

[SLCPUNK]

Interesting you'd ask him to be more transparent when Bush was as "non-transparent" a president as there ever was.

Obama was the one saying he would change that. So far he hasnt.

That's one of the first of many things you are incorrect about.

He changed that almost immediately.

[SLCPUNK]

Once again, these chumps simply can?t face up to the disaster the last eight years has brought us. They are unable to admit that the misguided policies of their far right wing heroes have failed us all. Their ideological hero, Rush Limbaugh, in between oxycontin hurls, has tried to install some sort of alternate reality for all of them to chew on.

Furthermore they seem to be completely unaware that the rest of the nation, along with the world has embraced a new leader for this country and is ready to rebuild what they have destroyed.  Trillions into that shithole Iraq, trillions of tax cuts (code word for borrowed money), and trillions more squandered away while regulation by the Executive Branch took an eight year vacation. Where were these whiny shitbags then? Why weren?t they up in arms? The simple fact is they not only stood by loser Bush, but feverishly supported this idiocy to the point of fanaticism.

What?s up with all the bellyaching now? They can?t be serious. Why weren?t they whining about the billions looted and unaccountable in Iraq? Were they bellyaching when we spent billions to build an Embassy in Iraq? How about money to rebuild Iraq?s infrastructure? Where was the whining about that? Now we are on the cusp of what can potentially be another great Depression (Keep in mind these ASSHOLES denied a recession until the very end, and still can?t own it) and they?re up in arms about the idea of money going to rebuild infrastructure in our country, crying ?Socialism?. Tuning into their AM radio stations to cry like little bitches to one another.  The nerve, hypocrisy and conspiracy theories of these assholes is astonishing.

[Smoking Guns]

SLC, I like Obama a lot, I just don't get why the fuck he picked a guy that had no intention of paying his taxes until he was selected to be the head of treasury.  It just screams dishonest and I find it laughable.  HE FUCKED UP HIS OWN TAXES, HOW IS HE WORTHY OF THE TITLE?  Someone please explain.  This my only "real" beef.  The guy is a blooming idiot.  Paulson is a clown too, but I thought we are suposed to be get better people that what bush had.  Jesus.  The bar is set reallllllllllllllllllllllly low.

[Jim Bob]

Do I think your unpatriotic for thinking differently? Absolutely not. I think your wrong. But not unpatriotic. Big difference.

most republicans attack democrats patriotism..  i was mockin that in case you missed it.

Fox' biggest show is not even close to Matthews or Olberman in terms of being fair and balanced. OReilly is much more practical and less nauseating then those 2 clowns. It not even close

Scarborough is the man. Wish they would put him in one of their prime time slots or atleast put him with one of the clowns.

O'Reilly does nothing but spout right-wing talking points.     Clearly you are a conservative fellow, and thats ok.   

[Smoking Guns]

Why does nobody want to talk about the Geithner?  Quit ignoring this clown.

[Axl4Prez2004]

Why does nobody want to talk about the Geithner?  Quit ignoring this clown.

I haven't posted here in a while.  On the Geithner issue, I'm just as confused over his selection.  I guess there are two ways of looking at it...Repubs seem to blast away over the tax issue...and from the other viewpoint, he may very well have the cleanest record they could find!    The financial world seems to be full of folks who pull this kind of crap.  Oh well.  I'm not worried about his selection. 

[pilferk]

Why does nobody want to talk about the Geithner?  Quit ignoring this clown.

Because there's not all that much to say about it.

I agree.  It's one of the few things I've disagreed with Obama about.  It might be a relatively minor transgression, in the grand scheme of things, but I still find it disturbing

I also disagree with him on the delay of the digital changeover in television.  I think it's a bad policy move because a) it causes consumer confusion, b) it's bad for those businesses, and c) it's outright dangerous...much of that spectrum is being "reserved" for emergency/first responder use and the quicker "we" get it, the better.

But I don't expect to agree 100% of the time, either.

As for providing you with an explanation:  I'm not sure it would be all that satisfying, or all that compelling, coming from any of the forum denizens.  We don't know what he was thinking.  Maybe Obama didn't know going in, found out around the time it came up during the confirmation, but Geithner's ability to do the job outweighed what Obama viewed as a minor issue.  I don't know.....

[pilferk]

Well, yesteday the Repubs seemed to make it known just which path they are going to adopt over the next 2 years:  The party of dissent.

Obama worked pretty hard to adapt this stimulus bill to bring into account some Republican comprise.  He stripped out some infrastructure spending for tax breaks.  He stripped out the family planning pieces of the bill at the Repubs request.  He practically bent over backwards (ticking off some in his own party who felt he was weakening the bill AND not paying enough attention to the Dem Caucus) to be bipartisan and give the Repubs some stuff they wanted.  And he didn't HAVE to, considering the way the House and Senate shape up.

And after all that...he didn't get ONE Republican vote on the package in the house.

And now Obama is left looking like he was the one willing to compromise, and the Repubs are left looking like THEY want to perpetuate the same partisan bullshit to their constituents.

Now, they have to hope the bill fails...in whatever form it passes.  I suspect (but don't know) that the Bill is going to return to a much closer version of the initial Bill when it comes out of the Senate, but we'll see. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood, more AIDS "education", money for ACORN, countless studies, etc. Very little actually goes to the economy. This bill is not really a stimulus. How about  eliminatting the corporate income tax, watch the dow shoot up 1000 points!

We need to pass something to keep our economy afloat but this one has too much shit packed in it. This is our taxpayers money and we know how well the 1st stimulus did. The banks to it and laughed...well...all the way to the bank 

If you're really quiet you can almost hear our government getting bigger...and bigger...and bigger...

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Hundreds of millions for Planned Parenthood, more AIDS "education", money for ACORN, countless studies, etc. Very little actually goes to the economy. This bill is not really a stimulus. How about  eliminatting the corporate income tax, watch the dow shoot up 1000 points!

We need to pass something to keep our economy afloat but this one has too much shit packed in it. This is our taxpayers money and we know how well the 1st stimulus did. The banks to it and laughed...well...all the way to the bank 

If you're really quiet you can almost hear our government getting bigger...and bigger...and bigger...

Calla te la boca.

When you create jobs, you are helping the economy.  That's the basic truth.  When people have jobs, they spend money.  And if you listen quietly, you can hear a cash register open up when a sale is made when a Planned Parenthood employee goes out to buy something!

Who is doing the educating?  Not a bunch of machines, that's for sure.  And what's bad about educating people?  Maybe fewer people will contract AIDS and fewer taxpayer dollars will be spent on treating these people.

Yeah, you eliminate the corporate tax and the fat cats will just stash that money in an offshore account.

Tell us what the Bush tax cuts did for us.

Go ahead, we're listening.

[pilferk]

Calla te la boca.

When you create jobs, you are helping the economy.  That's the basic truth.  When people have jobs, they spend money.  And if you listen quietly, you can hear a cash register open up when a sale is made when a Planned Parenthood employee goes out to buy something!

Who is doing the educating?  Not a bunch of machines, that's for sure.  And what's bad about educating people?  Maybe fewer people will contract AIDS and fewer taxpayer dollars will be spent on treating these people.

Yeah, you eliminate the corporate tax and the fat cats will just stash that money in an offshore account.

Tell us what the Bush tax cuts did for us.

Go ahead, we're listening.

I was looking at a study yesterday...can't remember who did it.  I wanna say Reuters Economy..but I know that's not the name...something like that.

They studied, over the past 10 (maybe 20?) years, what specific government spending stimulated the economy. 

For example, for every $1 spent on foodstamps, you generate something like $1.70 in economic activity.

Infrastructure turned out to be $1 spent vs $1.50 in economic activity.

Tax cuts?  $1 spent vs $1.03 in economic activity.  Basically a wash.

I gotta try to find that study again....if I can, I'll put a link up to it.

[GeorgeSteele]

^ It was Moody's.  Here's the link -- https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

A lot to read in there (and a good read it is); the stats you referenced are on page 9.

The bottom line (literally):  "Whether from a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity, crises end only with overwhelming government action."

[pilferk]

^ It was Moody's.  Here's the link -- https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

A lot to read in there (and a good read it is); the stats you referenced are on page 9.

The bottom line (literally):  "Whether from a natural disaster, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity, crises end only with overwhelming government action."

THANK YOU!!!     

I just couldn't remember the stinking name...I was talking to my wife about it last night and it's been bugging me ever since!

The piece I was talking about is on page 9....and i was pretty darn close on the numbers from memory!

[freedom78]

Q:  If a man has no job and, thus, no income, and you cut his income taxes, how much does he save so that he has more to spend?

A: ZE-FUCKING-RO

[SLCPUNK]

^ It was Moody's.  Here's the link -- https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

A lot to read in there (and a good read it is); the stats you referenced are on page 9.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I prefer to get all my information from youtube.