The Obama Economy

[silverscreenselect]

I come back, again, to why was the Stimulus Bill rushed through so hurriedly?

That much money should have been discussed and debated. I simply cannot understand why anyone, Democrat for or Republican against, could have made an informed decision without knowing what you are voting on.

The budget, due to be voted on very soon, is in the same boat. Neither side is deliberating on what is actually in it. Fine, the Democrats won the election, the policy behind the budget should be theirs, as well as the responsibility for it. I have no problem with that philosophy.

But to cast vote after vote, from either side of the aisle, without comprehending what you are voting for or against is absurd.

For good or bad, this is President Obama's economy. He will reap the reward or reproof should it fail.

The economy from a practical standpoint became Obama's the day he signed the stimulus package into law. Until then, he could claim that this was Bush's mess with some degree of validity. However, the stimulus package has radically altered what things we can do in the future and how we can react to future developments. In a sense, it is the equivalent of Bush's decision to invade Iraq which radically altered what we could do in the future in our international relations.

The public is much less inclined now to buy Obama's claims and the Republicans will probably have more of a backbone to put up a fight (you won't see a gang of three like there was last time), and they may pull one or two conservative Democrats with them. They don't have the votes to put their own budget through but they can a lot more reworking of Obama's if they choose to.

[Jeemie]

They don't have the votes to put their own budget through but they can a lot more reworking of Obama's if they choose to.

Not quite yet.

McCain tried to get the continuing resolution stripped of all earmarks, but the most of th Dems in the Senate united to pass it.

Of course, since at least 40% of the earmarks are from GOP Congressmen, the GOP doesn't have the moral high ground on this issue.

But for now, the majority in both houses seems united enough to continue to pass things with no cooperation from the GOP, and no need to even seek said cooperation.

[franktangredi]

We've had two people from oppostive sides of the political fence today make the same comparison.

As the example of FDR shows, that was PLENTY of time to come up with a well-thought-out plan for how to attack the problem.

When FDR took office, he hit the ground running with a series of bills designed to straighten up the bank mess, begin regulating the securities industry and begin enacting a series of ambitious public works programs. Agree with disagree with what he did, but it was clear he had a very well thought out game plan.

So here are two commentaries, from opposite sides of the political fence, that call that notion into question. It didn't take long to find them.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/ ... -days.html

What's interesting to know is that FDR did not come into office with the New Deal described in any way. It was undefined. And he didn't support a lot of those things in the beginning. He came into office actually opposing public works on any large scale. So FDR felt his way to what we now think of as the New Deal.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature ... -new-deal/

Fundamentally [FDR] was without any definite political or economic philosophy. He was not a man to deal in fundamentals. . . . The positions he took on political and economic questions were not taken in accordance with deeply rooted political beliefs but under the influence of political necessity. . . . He was in every sense purely an opportunist.

And here is FDR himself:

It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody. I'm just pointing out that, if you're going to criticize Obama for not having a definite plan, using FDR to make the comparison may not be the best way to bolster your argument.

[Jeemie]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody. I'm just pointing out that, if you're going to criticize Obama for not having a definite plan, using FDR to make the comparison may not be the best way to bolster your argument.

The critical difference, however, is that the each of the bits of legislation he introduced in the 100 Days were not hodgepodge, but narrowly focused on the objective he wanted that legislation to accomplish.

[Sir_Galahad]

I vigorously disagree that "it's pretty clear right now where Obama intends on taking this country." I don't even think he knows for sure. A lot of leading - in government or business or at home - is reactive. You have big plans, but then stuff happens and you have to improvise. (Like Bush did - very well at first - after 911).

Bingo. We have a winner.

Obama has no idea how to get the economy out of the depths it's in. He had three months to plan his "stimulus" bill and it was a cobbled together mess which seemed to incorporate anything that anyone on the Democrats' side came up with. His new budget is comprised of vague promises, wish list items, a hodgepodge tax structure that makes little sense, and no clear sense of direction.

OK. Here's my conspiracy theory.

There is no question that Obama was the most liberal senator. And, he has stated that he wants to "redistribute the wealth." Add to these the premise that the Democrat liberal agenda is to exploit the sub-middle class and make them (and the country) more dependent on government. What better way to destroy wealth and level the playing field, so to speak, than to have the stock market tank and saddle the country with debt that will take generations to repay? Perhaps Obama is not as clueless with regard to the economy as you might think.

[trevor_macfee]

I vigorously disagree that "it's pretty clear right now where Obama intends on taking this country." I don't even think he knows for sure. A lot of leading - in government or business or at home - is reactive. You have big plans, but then stuff happens and you have to improvise. (Like Bush did - very well at first - after 911).

Bingo. We have a winner.

Obama has no idea how to get the economy out of the depths it's in. He had three months to plan his "stimulus" bill and it was a cobbled together mess which seemed to incorporate anything that anyone on the Democrats' side came up with. His new budget is comprised of vague promises, wish list items, a hodgepodge tax structure that makes little sense, and no clear sense of direction.

When FDR took office, he hit the ground running with a series of bills designed to straighten up the bank mess, begin regulating the securities industry and begin enacting a series of ambitious public works programs. Agree with disagree with what he did, but it was clear he had a very well thought out game plan.

Obama has no game plan because he has no clear idea of what's needed to get things done and no commitment (other than alternating high minded wishifying speeches with predictions of impending doom) to getting things done. In the meantime, Rush and the Republicans seem more than content (not that it's a bad strategy) to paint him with a broad socialist brush and stand by while he runs things further into the ground.

The day-to-day developments in the economy can't be predicted, but the overall financial direction we were going in was clear on November 4 and abundantly clear on January 20. Obama has committed us to spending nearly a trillion dollars and he still isn't addressing either the short or long term economic picture.

So, I leave for a while and come back to find that my comments were misinterpreted (the generous view) or twisted (the other view).

I was NOT criticizing Obama for not having a plan. Quite the opposite. I'm not smart enough about economics to know whether what he's doing is the "right" thing or not, or if there is even a right thing. (I'm not sure anyone is smart enough - remember some of the folks who are so sure Obama is doing the wrong thing were sure that oil would hit $200 before it was back to $100. What is it now?)

Obama won. Whether I voted for him or not, I'm willing to see if what he's doing works or not.

If after three years this administration is as messed up as the last one, then let's try something else.

The sense I get about Obama is embodied in the FDR quote Frank brought forward - "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something." I'm fine with that. The problem with 24-hour news cycles is that there is no opportunity to admit failure, learn from it, and move on. What happens is that failures end up being justified over and over with no change in perspective or policy - people in power can't even think of one mistake they've made (speaking of the last administration, but not just them).

[Jeemie]

OK. Here's my conspiracy theory.

There is no question that Obama was the most liberal senator. And, he has stated that he wants to "redistribute the wealth." Add to these the premise that the Democrat liberal agenda is to exploit the sub-middle class and make them (and the country) more dependent on government. What better way to destroy wealth and level the playing field, so to speak, than to have the stock market tank and saddle the country with debt that will take generations to repay? Perhaps Obama is not as clueless with regard to the economy as you might think.

Talk like this is the reason the GOP will not get back into power anytime soon.

[Jeemie]

remember some of the folks who are so sure Obama is doing the wrong thing were sure that oil would hit $200 before it was back to $100. What is it now?

Speaking of twisting.

I said this...and it had nothing to do with Obama.

In fact, it was not a partisan statement at all....but had to do with fundamentals of supply and demand.

I didn't expect the economy to fall off as much as it did, or my prediction might very well have come true.

[Rexer25]

I didn't expect whatever caused the prediction to fail, or my prediction might very well have come true.

Spoken like a true professional prognosticator!

[Jeemie]

I didn't expect whatever caused the prediction to fail, or my prediction might very well have come true.

Spoken like a true professional prognosticator!

No- I was wrong.

I admit that.

Obama has access to more data than i do, however.

At least- he should.

[Rexer25]

I didn't expect whatever caused the prediction to fail, or my prediction might very well have come true.

Spoken like a true professional prognosticator!

No- I was wrong.

I admit that.

Obama has access to more data than i do, however.

At least- he should.

I was just pointing out that your initial quote was just like anyone who's been wrong in making a prediction.
At least you didn't try to twist it, and make us believe that you were right, unlike some I could name...

[Sir_Galahad]

OK. Here's my conspiracy theory.

There is no question that Obama was the most liberal senator. And, he has stated that he wants to "redistribute the wealth." Add to these the premise that the Democrat liberal agenda is to exploit the sub-middle class and make them (and the country) more dependent on government. What better way to destroy wealth and level the playing field, so to speak, than to have the stock market tank and saddle the country with debt that will take generations to repay? Perhaps Obama is not as clueless with regard to the economy as you might think.

Talk like this is the reason the GOP will not get back into power anytime soon.

And, not if they put forth guys like McCain as their candidate.

(It is only a theory. An extreme right, kookie theory, yes. But a theory nonetheless.)

[Bob78164]

As the example of FDR shows, that was PLENTY of time to come up with a well-thought-out plan for how to attack the problem.

Bear in mind that FDR had (a) an extra month and a half before his first inauguration, and (b) a Congress that could not (or as a practical matter would not) block his plans by attempting a filibuster. --Bob

[dimmzy]

dimmzy wrote:
Quote:
Would you like to try actually addressing the issues raised?


No.

This too will pass.


You see, Jeemie, I find this to be the problem with many Obama supporters.

Who said I was an Obama supporter?

In the early 1960s when I was young, they said the hippies and the anti-war movement were going to destroy America. It didn't.
In the early 1970s when I was a teen, they said that the fall of VietNam would mean that Communists would take over the world. They didn't.
They said that over-population and environmental problems would end the world by 1999. Anyone remember the Zero Population Growth movement?
On Jan. 1, 2000, computers would simultaneously crash the world over because of Y2K, especially in the Third World and Russia. I think a lightbulb went out in New Zealand.
In the early 1980s, they said JAPAN was going to be the world economic leader because of its discipline, intelligence, quality products and a singular sense of purpose. So sorry.
They said 2 years ago that China was an unstoppable economic power. Not really.
They said Obama is wrong and everything he does is a mistake. Who knows? He's not in it alone.

These debates are fun to pass the time and to have something to get passionate about, but really...

This too will pass.

[Jeemie]

As the example of FDR shows, that was PLENTY of time to come up with a well-thought-out plan for how to attack the problem.

Bear in mind that FDR had (a) an extra month and a half before his first inauguration, and (b) a Congress that could not (or as a practical matter would not) block his plans by attempting a filibuster. --Bob

Obama knew he was winning in September. I took great pains to point that out.

He essentially had the same amount of time as FDR to plan out what he wanted to do (although, of course, FDR knew he was winning too), and he DOES have essentially a filibuster-proof Congress.

The point being, Obama has had plenty of time to come up with something better than the unfocused hodgepodge that passed into law.

Geitherner also was Paulson's point man regarding TARP- he has had plenty of time to think of a plan to actually address the toxic assets that STILL, after a year and a half and $10 trillion, have not been addressed.

[Bob78164]

He essentially had the same amount of time as FDR to plan out what he wanted to do (although, of course, FDR knew he was winning too), and he DOES have essentially a filibuster-proof Congress.

The point being, Obama has had plenty of time to come up with something better than the unfocused hodgepodge that passed into law.

Presidents don't do that sort of thing personally. They can't -- there are too many problems and not enough hours in the day. That's part of the reason they have a Cabinet, and staff members. Candidates, however, can't appoint a Cabinet (it would be presumptuous) and their staff members are generally otherwise occupied until the election is in the books. --Bob

[Weyoun]

I am reminded of the Khrushchev story recounted in "Traffic." Obama already blamed Bush. Now the the stimulus has passed and we still look clueless, Obama's well on course to writing two letters.

[silverscreenselect]

He essentially had the same amount of time as FDR to plan out what he wanted to do (although, of course, FDR knew he was winning too), and he DOES have essentially a filibuster-proof Congress.

The point being, Obama has had plenty of time to come up with something better than the unfocused hodgepodge that passed into law.

Presidents don't do that sort of thing personally. They can't -- there are too many problems and not enough hours in the day. That's part of the reason they have a Cabinet, and staff members. Candidates, however, can't appoint a Cabinet (it would be presumptuous) and their staff members are generally otherwise occupied until the election is in the books. --Bob

Exactly which problems were more important to the incoming Obama administration than the economic crisis? The choice of the official White House pooch or which inauguration ball to attend?

I didn't expect Obama to sit at his word processor on Christmas Eve and type out a 1600 page stimulus bill. However, considering the gravity of the situation, he could have gotten a detailed summary of just what provisions were and were not in the bill and it was up to him to decide whether it was important to include them or not. So either he didn't perform this essential bit of oversight or he did a spectacularly lousy job of it (I suspect the latter, because he has no real comprehension of what effect all this spending will have).

Some perspective on FDR. When he took office banks in 32 states and the District of Columbia were closed. The Federal Reserve Bank in New York City didn't open due to a run. Five days after he was inaugurated, Congress passed the Emergency Banking Bill which began the process of propping up the banks and led to most of the banks reopening in an orderly fashion. The Glass-Steagall act, which created the FDIC, passed within three months.

The CCC was created by executive order within two weeks. The Emergency Relief Act was passed within two months. The NIRA was passed within three months. The Securities Act was passed within three months. The AAA was passed in a little over two months. The gold standard (which artificially inflated interest rates) was eliminated within two months. Although the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition was already in the works, an emergency bill legalizing near beer was passed within two weeks.

According to most economic indicators, the economy hit rock bottom at or near March 1933 (when FDR was inaugurated) and began a steady climb shortly thereafter. If FDR did wing it, he sure was good at it.

[earendel]

I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the "usual suspects" in this matter would have had much the same opinions of the incoming president in 1933 and Rush Limbaugh, had he been around, would have been hoping for FDR to fail.

My 2-cents' worth on this issue is this: The situations facing Obama and FDR, though superficially the same, are not. The media in FDRs day was much different than it is today - the 24-hour news behemoth has to be fed and the chattering classes have to have something to talk about, so rather than giving time for the Obama plan to work, they bloviate about it. There are other political issues involved, too - IMO Obama did the wrong thing by turning the plan over to Pelosi and Reid; he's the one with the political capital, not they and he's the one with the "national vision", whereas their view is more parochial (as it should be).

[Jeemie]

There are other political issues involved, too - IMO Obama did the wrong thing by turning the plan over to Pelosi and Reid; he's the one with the political capital, not they and he's the one with the "national vision", whereas their view is more parochial (as it should be).

That, more than anything else, is my biggest beef with Obama thus far...and one I don't have "give some time" to criticize.

And, IMHO, I think this ceding of responsibility has a lot to do with Congress essentially thumbing its collective nose at Obama this week when they passed the $410 billion omnibus spending bill. Obama pleaded with them to take out the earmarks, and they said "F*** you".

Of course, you sort of give up some negotiating power when you let it be known you'll sign the bill regardless.

PS I do understand the 24-hour news cycle that didn't exist in FDR's day. However, as I mentioned earlier, FDR's legislation, whether he "winged it" or not, directly and immediately addressed the key issues facing the country at the moment.

Obama's plans, thus far, do not. Even solid Keynesians are criticizing the plan for having most of its "stimulus" kick in in 2010 and 2011- when most expect the economy to be starting to recover anyway. if that's the case, all we'll get from the stimulus plan is severe inflation.

Additionally, until the financial system is addressed quickly and in a fundamental way, no stimulus is going to work- that's just plain good economic sense.

As I pointed out in the "Credit Crisis video" thread, we need to quickly isolate the "CDO bombs" that are still out there so they can "explode" in a way that does the least harm. We haven't even begun to do that- even after a year and a half.

That's a failure on all parties involved.

[silverscreenselect]

The media in FDRs day was much different than it is today - the 24-hour news behemoth has to be fed and the chattering classes have to have something to talk about, so rather than giving time for the Obama plan to work, they bloviate about it.

One big difference... unless one of FDR's cabinet appointees had been a convicted ax murderer, it's doubtful anyone would have raised one peep about their qualifications, either in the press or in Congress.

[Flybrick]

One big difference... unless one of FDR's cabinet appointees had been a convicted ax murderer, it's doubtful anyone would have raised one peep about their qualifications, either in the press or in Congress.

And there we agree.

The incessant minutiae that passes for news is ludicrous.

Gaithner's tax problem and being Secretary of the Treasury (therefore the IRS) is a legitimate issue I would think.

Not so for Daschle at HHS.

The same for Supreme Court and other judicial nominees: the hold ups and political theater for such appointments is very destructive to the country.

If a Democrat wins the big prize, then he or she should get the team he or she wants barring the murder in your example. Same for court appointments. As should a Republican when they are in the driver's seat.

Elections (should) have consequences.

Instead, we get hours about a potential First Dog or how 'hot' the President-elect was on vacation in Hawaii without his shirt. Or GWB's brush-clearing.

Enough.

Let's devote that air time to more Brittany stories....

[Skittles]

I thought it was the American economy.