quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I've said it before and I'll say it again. Expectations are too high.

The right seems to be the only group that has bought into the idea of instant transformative change. I don't know why this is constantly a mantra of disappointment for you.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka You do realize the utter incompetence of several of the people you are lionizing here? Immelt...running GE into the ground. Donaldson...another inept SEC chairman. Can you honestly name me a significant accomplishment he had? Feltstein...among the worst investors in the last 2 years. Yay, he went to harvard. He's a value investor who has destroyed more shareholder value than he'll likely ever be able to re-create. Why are we shouting amen, hallelujah again?

The White House has pointed out the members are "distinguished citizens outside the government who are qualified on the basis of achievement, experience, independence, and integrity. The Board will bring a diverse set of perspectives and voices from different parts of the country and different sectors of the economy to bear in the formulation and evaluation of economic policy."

The members are meant to be a broad swath of people to represent the current economic makeup. The board isn't meant to offer specific ideas on how to help or fix the economy, Obama has those people already as his economic advisors (Summers, Geithner, Orszag, Romer). The board is meant to gather outside opinions from the people on the front lines, their "qualifications" are irrelevant so much as they are qualified to represent current opinion in their economic sections.

Its a diverse group, as Fox News points out Some Good Picks, Some Bad Picks and Some Clear Conflicts, meant to stimulate ideas, debate, and perspective. (BTW, the article gives thumbs up to both Donaldson and Feldstein.)

The hallelujah comes because its a great idea and a clear break from the insiders only bubble the last President governed under.

quote:

No, it was general advice and commentary. Not everything needs to be translated as Bush defense, ya know. And Senior Hope & Change has done a great job being incredibly innovative and bringing back ghosts of the past. What's your point? There's no need to cry every time someone says anything less than groovy about your exalted one. I won't. Perhaps you'll quit drooling at everything Obama does like it couldn't possibly be anything but the greatest possible decision in mankind. Sorry--he ain't livin' up to the hype and his supporters know it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Expectations are too high. Obama may be buying low but he may be doomed to fail given the all the hype.

The Republicans spent the majority of the last 8 years under a dissent-is-treason style of governing. The mistakes and failures of Bush are the mistakes and failures of the Republicans and vise versa. For both those in office and not in office. There is no room for any of the Republicans to pass any blame to anyone but themselves in a singular and collective sense. That's all.

I've been plenty critical of Obama. You might have missed my thread titled "Obama backpeddles on just about everything." I still appreciate the way he operates and its refreshing to have a Commander in Chief actually qualified for the position.

Last edited by josh4 on Feb-06-2009 at 22:03

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX that part is amusing, when in power they spent like it was going out of style and within a week of Bush's departure the fiscal conservatives have come crawling out of the woodwork. its a good thing in my opinion, the Republican party of the Bush presidency was a disaster. I don't think any Republicans are questioning the need for a stimulus bill, but if a line item in the stimulus bill doesn't create jobs within the next 12 months then it should be treated as normal government spending and removed from the bill. And if the line item doesn't pass the "should we be spending money on this anyway" test then it needs to go also. The idea of a stimulus bill is that it is spending that would happen in the near term. Take your pork pet projects out of this bill and do something that is right for the country.

I agree that some pet projects should be removed (i.e., resodding, blah blah), however, if a pet project is truly stimulating and advances future growth, does it hurt to keep it in the package? My qualifications for spending would be: (i) does the spending spur immediately economic activity, and (ii) does the spending faciliate future economic growth? To be included in the bill as a spending provision, I believe the answer should be yes to both. However, I wouldn't get too caught up in certain spending provisions that had either an immediate impact and no long term impact or a long term impact with little immediate impact. So long as those provisions weren't significant (in relative terms), they shouldn't be a barrier. Attempts to kill a package when less than 5% (before someone calls me out on this percentage, I arbitrarily picked the number) of the spending is 'pork' is stupid; especially considering ALL spending will positively impact either immediate economic activity or future economic activity. The question isn't whether spending will impact economic activity, it is to what extent it will do so. The government should put the money to the most efficient use, however, any spending at this point would be positive. As a result, I wouldn't get too hung up on small pet provisions. If the pet provisions consisted of a larger percentage of the package, and were truly less efficient uses of the money (which isn't necessarily the case - pork spending doesn't necessarily equal inefficient spending), then I would certainly have a huge issue with it.

Last edited by jerZ07002 on Feb-06-2009 at 21:59

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 The White House has pointed out the members are "distinguished citizens outside the government who are qualified on the basis of achievement, experience, independence, and integrity. The Board will bring a diverse set of perspectives and voices from different parts of the country and different sectors of the economy to bear in the formulation and evaluation of economic policy."

So everything this White House says is truth to be taken at face value, as opposed to previous White Houses? Particularly in light of the string of recent cabinet appointment blowups? Forgive my skepticism, even if it is founded on several years of watching these very people make horrible decisions. Larry Summers is right up there with them. Volcker is one of the only people on his economic team that I actually respect.

quote:

The members are meant to be a broad swath of people to represent the current economic makeup. The board isn't meant to offer specific ideas on how to help or fix the economy, Obama has those people already as his economic advisors (Summers, Geithner, Orszag, Romer). The board is meant to gather outside opinions from the people on the front lines, their "qualifications" are irrelevant so much as they are qualified to represent current opinion in their economic sections.

Stop with that already. Why isn't Joe the Plumber on the team? Qualifications don't matter? What does matter? Simply someone's title? LOL.

quote:

Its a diverse group, as Fox News points out Some Good Picks, Some Bad Picks and Some Clear Conflicts, meant to stimulate ideas, debate, and perspective. (BTW, the article gives thumbs up to both Donaldson and Feldstein.)

So just because Fox News said it and I'm a conservative I'm supposed to automatically assume it's fact? Certainly you can't possibly believe that is a sound position.

quote:

The Republicans spent the majority of the last 8 years under a dissent-is-treason style of governing. The mistakes and failures of Bush are the mistakes and failures of the Republicans and vise versa. For both those in office and not in office. There is no room for any of the Republicans to pass any blame to anyone but themselves in a singular and collective sense. That's all.

OK fine, but it's still my country too and I have just as much right and authority to criticize as you.

quote:

I've been plenty critical of Obama. You might have missed my thread titled "Obama backpeddles on just about everything." I still appreciate the way he operates and its refreshing to have a Commander in Chief actually qualified for the position.

True, I have been much more preoccupied with work lately and I think I missed that thread. I'll have to search for it. Though I am not convinced that Obama is so "qualified." I'm merely glad that he is not Hillary, though I'm certainly not pleased she is a cabinet member.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the economy is in awful shape and it's something I've been saying for years in this forum. However, I do find it a bit ironic that the previous administration was chastised for using fear and the talk of the imminent threat to clear passage for a strategy of pre-emptive war and to justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting an unpopular war in a far off land in the name of national security...today if we replace the word "Iraq" with "the economy" we have a new administration using fear and the need for immediate action to justify spending trillions of dollars on social programs, wealth transfer programs, etc., in the name of domestic security. Same shit, different day--the tables have been turned.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So everything this White House says is truth to be taken at face value, as opposed to previous White Houses? Particularly in light of the string of recent cabinet appointment blowups? Forgive my skepticism, even if it is founded on several years of watching these very people make horrible decisions. Larry Summers is right up there with them. Volcker is one of the only people on his economic team that I actually respect. Stop with that already. Why isn't Joe the Plumber on the team? Qualifications don't matter? What does matter? Simply someone's title? LOL. So just because Fox News said it and I'm a conservative I'm supposed to automatically assume it's fact? Certainly you can't possibly believe that is a sound position.

Eh blah. You're reading too much into it and missing the essence of the Board's purpose. Economic Recovery Advisory Board - it will just be an entity for outside opinion. For that reason the qualification requirements don't matter as much. A lot of the members are probably on it because of campaign contributions rather than quality of their work. Things like the Council of Economic Advisers will be where most of the economic policy will come from.

quote:

OK fine, but it's still my country too and I have just as much right and authority to criticize as you.

Have at it haus.

quote:

True, I have been much more preoccupied with work lately and I think I missed that thread. I'll have to search for it. Though I am not convinced that Obama is so "qualified." I'm merely glad that he is not Hillary, though I'm certainly not pleased she is a cabinet member. Now don't get me wrong, I think the economy is in awful shape and it's something I've been saying for years in this forum. However, I do find it a bit ironic that the previous administration was chastised for using fear and the talk of the imminent threat to clear passage for a strategy of pre-emptive war and to justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting an unpopular war in a far off land in the name of national security...today if we replace the word "Iraq" with "the economy" we have a new administration using fear and the need for immediate action to justify spending trillions of dollars on social programs, wealth transfer programs, etc., in the name of domestic security. Same shit, different day--the tables have been turned.

I agree, but at least this time the method is being used for needed measures that (I believe) will do more good than harm. Opposed to an embarrassment like the Patriot Act. Stick with what works I guess.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...over-long-haul/

quote:

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul Stephen Dinan (Contact) President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects, CBO said in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican, who was tapped by Mr. Obama on Tuesday to be Commerce Secretary. The House last week passed a bill totaling about $820 billion while the Senate is working on a proposal reaching about $900 billion in spending increases and tax cuts. But Republicans and some moderate Democrats have balked at the size of the bill and at some of the spending items included in it, arguing they won't produce immediate jobs, which is the stated goal of the bill. The budget office had previously estimated service the debt due to the new spending could add hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of the bill -- forcing the crowd-out. CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter. CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010. The agency projected the Senate bill would produce between 1.4 percent and 4.1 percent higher growth in 2009 than if there was no action. For 2010, the plan would boost growth by 1.2 percent to 3.6 percent. CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.