TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Obama killing the economy and stock market? Huh?
Pages (6): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo sure, and of course I will be happy if things start to get better. but these first few weeks have been dismal. mistakes are being made left and right. it's really disappointing.

I agree that mistakes have been made, but it's a tricky rope to walk. Republicans wanted a much smaller stimulus focused entirely on tax cuts (or none at all). Progressives (including myself) wanted a much, much larger stimulus with a greater emphasis on infrastructure and unemployment help/health care subsidies. What we got was something in the middle. I think it's been a valuable lesson for the Obama folks that A. you can't please everyone, and B. sometimes one side is wrong. History will bear this out, but economics already shows that we need to stimulate demand and tax cuts is not the way to do it.

We're facing a trillion dollar output shortfall, and we've plugged $400 billion with that last stimulus. It's akin to sand-bagging around 40% of the town... we're still going to get inundated.

In my opinion, it's time for Obama to take off the kid gloves. Republicans never came to the table to craft policy:

quote:

�We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010,� said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. �Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint.� McHenry�s spokesperson, Brock McCleary, tells me his boss is standing by the quote. McHenry�s description of his party�s goal � to �bring down approval numbers� for Nancy Pelosi and House Dems � is being much talked about today among Congressional Dems. It�s likely that Dems will grab on to the quote today to bolster their charge that Congressional Republicans aren�t interested in playing a constructive role in governing and see their hope for political revival in the eventual failure of the Democratic majority�s policies.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/

hehe.. did you see the SNL The Rock Obama..

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo hehe.. did you see the SNL The Rock Obama..

Can't say I did. I really don't see much TV (other than 30 Rock).

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Can't say I did. I really don't see much TV (other than 30 Rock).

I watch prety much zero tv, I just saw it online today. here:

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_L...-obama/1056126/

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I agree that mistakes have been made, but it's a tricky rope to walk. Republicans wanted a much smaller stimulus focused entirely on tax cuts (or none at all). Progressives (including myself) wanted a much, much larger stimulus with a greater emphasis on infrastructure and unemployment help/health care subsidies. What we got was something in the middle. I think it's been a valuable lesson for the Obama folks that A. you can't please everyone, and B. sometimes one side is wrong. History will bear this out, but economics already shows that we need to stimulate demand and tax cuts is not the way to do it. We're facing a trillion dollar output shortfall, and we've plugged $400 billion with that last stimulus. It's akin to sand-bagging around 40% of the town... we're still going to get inundated. In my opinion, it's time for Obama to take off the kid gloves. Republicans never came to the table to craft policy: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...mbers-for-dems/

I personally don't think the mistakes being made concerned decisions which were of the "tough" variety. And given what was said during the campaign, I would have expected O to go the other way or at least in a markedly different direction - that's why it's disappointing. There were a lot of empty promises along the way. But, apparently, this is what politicians do. Don't know if you remember but i am not a politics guy. This election was the first time I was really interested. And, according to the election statistics, I was not alone. Many many first-time voters. Many people were tired of the previous administration and for sure we did not want Palin anywhere near the White House. Those were my motivating factors, looking back. But I was also optimistic that O could turn things around and invigorate markets - I know the market is not a direct indicator of presidential performance but I felt he was influential enough TO have some recognizable positive effect on it. Anyways this whole thing with politicians has left me quite cynical and honestly if this is "what they do" then I feel like I wasted soooooo much time effort and energy following the election and campaign. I'm glad we kept Palin out of the White House tho.

I just don't see that at all. I mean, if you're using the market as a baseline for job performance maybe. But there's been a great deal of change thusfar in government policy - ending the gag rule on abortion, the codification of equal pay for women, lifting the moratorium on federal funding for stem cell research, drawing down in Iraq, moving toward closing Guantanamo, etc.

There are some things where I think Obama's fallen short of my hopes, but it's hard to argue that he's "failed" there - on torture he hasn't met progressive demands, but conservatives aren't complaining. On the economy he is in the awkward position of having caved to compromise from the very start and passed an inadequate bill, but the sentiment in Washington is quickly swinging toward redressing that.

Overall, I think Obama has been largely successful. I never thought things would shift overnight - it takes a long time to craft policy, and an even longer time to evaluate effectiveness. I would imagine we won't have a verdict on the first 100 days until near the end of this term.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I just don't see that at all. I mean, if you're using the market as a baseline for job performance maybe. But there's been a great deal of change thusfar in government policy - ending the gag rule on abortion, the codification of equal pay for women, lifting the moratorium on federal funding for stem cell research, drawing down in Iraq, moving toward closing Guantanamo, etc. There are some things where I think Obama's fallen short of my hopes, but it's hard to argue that he's "failed" there - on torture he hasn't met progressive demands, but conservatives aren't complaining. On the economy he is in the awkward position of having caved to compromise from the very start and passed an inadequate bill, but the sentiment in Washington is quickly swinging toward redressing that. Overall, I think Obama has been largely successful. I never thought things would shift overnight - it takes a long time to craft policy, and an even longer time to evaluate effectiveness. I would imagine we won't have a verdict on the first 100 days until near the end of this term.

I will also point out that many times back in November & December, after the election, when Obama was doing decisive things like naming Cabinet officials, the market was rallying on the hope of where things were headed. Just look at what happened when they named Geithner. Then Geithner had tax problems (along with others) and underperformed the expectations in terms of providing clarity, confidence and details.

I think one of the main reasons the market rallied before the new year was because it looked like Obama was going to step in, take the reins, and tell the crew how we were going to guide the ship through the storm. It hasn't really happened that way, which is why the market is disappointed and pricing that disappointment and fear into stocks, bonds, credit.

And I won't disagree on some of the social policy issues points during normal times, but we aren't living in those. I mean, who cares if stem cell research is allowed if tax receipts and private investment won't fund it (past the point where it's "stimulus" that we can't afford to fund forever?

^^^ precisely. and I'm all for equal pay, but what if you don't have a job? addressing the wrong things at the wrong time.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey Opus--the market looks forward, not backward! The gripe isn't that the plan is killing the market, rather it's more along the lines that the plan is long on spending and short on details and is heavy on welfare and wealth transfer and light on real stimulus. In short, it's half-baked and the market players aren't biting. Just sayin'.

Well I'll just add my two cents to this post. As to welfare ... I didn't really see that with exception to the extension of unemployment benefits ... nothing too excessive however. The stimulus package was short on details and it was heavy on wealth transfer but probably not for the same reasons that you might agree. I definitely thought the stimulus package was far too compromising to republicans in that its largest component was tax cuts. Tax cuts are a wealth transfer because we have a progressive income tax. Instead of tax cuts the focus should have been on more fiscal stimulus. I can't think of a policy decision more silly than to stimulate "demand" via tax cuts when consumer confidence is taking a dump on the entire economy. Particularly when one takes into consideration that we are experiencing a bubble bursting of a minuscule savings rate.

As for the markets ... well shit do you really think the markets are acting rational right now? CDS spreads alone on certain companies should provide enough indication that shit is completely fucked up. Healthy companies should not have these kinds of problems raising money in the credit markets (and a lot of them are legitimately healthy)! Yes the stimulus plan is half baked, but the market is even MORE half baked. As for what market "players" are looking for imo are nationalizations. And I agree with that ... there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. Those preferred shares need to be converted to common equity and the big banks broken up into bad banks/good banks. I think that's what's needed, what everyone expects, and this delay in nationalization is a legitimate criticism.

However, I am FAR FAR FAR FAR more critical of newly appointed retards McCain and Shelby for advocating big bank failures. I mean seriously .... after seeing what happened with Lehman do you seriously think we can SURVIVE a deleveraging of a Citi or BOA failure???

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo ^^^ precisely. and I'm all for equal pay, but what if you don't have a job? addressing the wrong things at the wrong time.

You guys sound like Mark Halperin - "President Obama, aren't you being distracted by the real issues by taking five minutes to sign a monumental stem cell bill?"

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I'll just add my two cents to this post. As to welfare ... I didn't really see that with exception to the extension of unemployment benefits ... nothing too excessive however. The stimulus package was short on details and it was heavy on wealth transfer but probably not for the same reasons that you might agree. I definitely thought the stimulus package was far too compromising to republicans in that its largest component was tax cuts. Tax cuts are a wealth transfer because we have a progressive income tax. Instead of tax cuts the focus should have been on more fiscal stimulus. I can't think of a policy decision more silly than to stimulate "demand" via tax cuts when consumer confidence is taking a dump on the entire economy. Particularly when one takes into consideration that we are experiencing a bubble bursting of a minuscule savings rate. As for the markets ... well shit do you really think the markets are acting rational right now? CDS spreads alone on certain companies should provide enough indication that shit is completely fucked up. Healthy companies should not have these kinds of problems raising money in the credit markets (and a lot of them are legitimately healthy)! Yes the stimulus plan is half baked, but the market is even MORE half baked. As for what market "players" are looking for imo are nationalizations. And I agree with that ... there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. Those preferred shares need to be converted to common equity and the big banks broken up into bad banks/good banks. I think that's what's needed, what everyone expects, and this delay in nationalization is a legitimate criticism. However, I am FAR FAR FAR FAR more critical of newly appointed retards McCain and Shelby for advocating big bank failures. I mean seriously .... after seeing what happened with Lehman do you seriously think we can SURVIVE a deleveraging of a Citi or BOA failure???

Nationalization will indeed be the coming debate in the next month, and that probably helps explain the decline in share values on Wall Street - what corporation is excited about that prospect? I go back to Josh Marshall's point about how Wall Street is driven by opinions and values of people that don't necessarily represent the best interests of the entire economy in a holistic sense. We need to focus on increasing demand among consumers, not among stock buyers.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You guys sound like Mark Halperin - "President Obama, aren't you being distracted by the real issues by taking five minutes to sign a monumental stem cell bill?"

how's that Kool-aid tasting these days?

this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/A...e-41012852.html

quote:

Amateur hour at the White House It was embarrassing enough that President Barack Obama insulted British Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week by handing him 25 movie videos as the Chief Executive�s diplomatic gift to the visiting representative of America�s most important ally. Compared to Brown�s gifts, which included a pen holder made of wood from a British warship that helped stamp out the slave trade, Obama�s gift, in the words of The Telegraph (UK), �looked like the kind of thing the White House might hand out to the visiting head of a minor African state.� Even worse is the context in which this huge diplomatic gaffe took place � a six-week succession of miscues, oversights, miscalculations and outright errors that suggest things are gone seriously awry in the White House. * Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells a European Union gathering that the American democracy �has been around a lot longer than European democracy.� This no doubt particularly surprised the Dutch, whose republic commenced years before the U.S. won its independence. Somebody should tell Clinton about Athens, too. * White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag say Obama will sign the $410 billion omnibus spending bill because it is �last year�s business,� even though the bill requires the president�s signature now to become law. This despite promising before the election a �line-by-line� battle against waste. Obama has or soon will sign bills containing more than 17,000 earmarks. * �Catastrophe� would result from delays in passing the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, according to Obama, who then took a four-day shopping weekend with his family in Chicago before signing the �emergency� legislation. * Obama�s first Commerce Secretary nominee is forced to withdraw, as are his first choice for HHS Secretary and several of his picks for top White House policy positions, due to assorted tax and other ethical problems that should have been caught during the transition process. * Attorney General Eric Holder calls Americans �a nation of cowards� for allegedly not talking enough about race issues. Even the President is forced to disavow publicly Holder's assertion. * Treasurer Secretary Timothy Geithner is touted as the only man who can fix the banking system, but, weeks after his controversial nomination is confirmed, crucial details of his plan remain a mystery, along with who will fill numerous senior positions within his department. The president remains personally popular, but nothing so erodes public confidence as the perception of ineptitude. Policy differences are one thing, but Americans won�t accept incompetence in the Oval Office.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo how's that Kool-aid tasting these days?

Whatever are you talking about? I thought you were mad that the President wasn't working on campaign pledges - should he put the rest of them on the back burner until the market, which wants something altogether different from Washington than what the country needs, comes around?

it's clear to me that discussing this with you is not going to get us anywhere. and quite frankly, i have better things to do than to waste my time in here.

quote:

Originally posted by delobbo it's clear to me that discussing this with you is not going to get us anywhere. and quite frankly, i have better things to do than to waste my time in here.

Lebez asked a very legitimate question to you. Why is it when people ask you questions you seemingly say the same thing to them?

And forgive my skepticism for a moment, but quoting an op-ed from the Conservative Washington Examiner? I'm not wanting to attack the source here rather than the argument, but I tend to wonder if you really are the Obama supporter that you say you are.

Regardless, I'm crammed at work, so I'll get to the other posts when I get a chance.

It's been interesting to see the sudden "relevance" that the Examiner has found since the election... nobody would touch it with a ten foot pole before. It's amusing though - everybody knows that the Washington Times is a rag, but when all of its reporters leave to go to the Examiner, somehow their reporting is better?

is the information in the examiner link false?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Lebez asked a very legitimate question to you. Why is it when people ask you questions you seemingly say the same thing to them? And forgive my skepticism for a moment, but quoting an op-ed from the Conservative Washington Examiner? I'm not wanting to attack the source here rather than the argument, but I tend to wonder if you really are the Obama supporter that you say you are. Regardless, I'm crammed at work, so I'll get to the other posts when I get a chance.

i say it because i seriously dont have the time or patience to go and research this stuff to show you. its on the news, try tuning in.

I don't get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I don't get it.

It's only funny if you don't know what socialism is.

I fear obama is taking us down a terrible path, even though not as bad as bush. While I agree there is a need for some sort of stimulus, the administration has it all wrong. The plan is too heavy on temporary tax relief and current economic stimulus without the necessary future growth prospects (i.e., not enough spending on future growth projects). His plan is full of incentives that don't promote the right kind of behaviors. Those who work hard are not only not being rewarded, but are also being slightly punished. I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes, but I don't want it lining the pockets of poor people. I would rather have it building schools, or funding the education of the children of the poor. While helpful to the recipient, a direct check is unproductive for society.

With all that said, the future inflationary pressure is going to kill those who obama is trying to help most (the poor). The poor are the class of people who are hurt the most by inflation because their wages are least likely to keep pace with inflation. My wages (scratch that - my salary) should keep pace, so I'll likely benefit from inflation (reducing the real dollar cost of loans, and considering i don't have substantial savings at this early point in my life). It's too bad people are so short-sighted.

I don't feel they spent enough time THINKING about what to do. They just rushed it out. In terms of a SOLUTION, this required some serious thought and contemplation. And, it needed the power of a visionary or visionaries - they need not be Harvard grads (from what we've seen, this may even work against them) - they could be a high school dropout for all I care. They just need to have a clear sight and vision of what needs to happen. They need to be a genius and come up with a genius, THOUGHT OUT plan. We did not get anything remotely close to it.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 I have no problem paying my fair share of taxes, but I don't want it lining the pockets of poor people.

Yeah that extra 25$ a week in unemployment benefits is really gonna line their pockets.

I do agree though that much more education spending is needed.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.