Well whoa darn! Obama has failed - already?

[raven_gaurd0]

Don't get angry at me.

 

 

 

After just three (Four?) weeks in office, Obama has already proven himself as partisan as any president, and completely unable to deal with the rapid disappointment of his stimulus plan. The stimulus bill, which, miraculously, actually got through Congress in only a week or so (if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress...?) and is now to be signed. This trillion-dollar plan is filled with pork barreled spending, unnecessary luxuries, and partisan fundings.

 

 

 

And he puts a 500,000 dollar cap on CEO salaries, when he's delivering millions for vehicles for Washington execs of the Democratic party?

 

 

 

Are you kidding me?

 

 

 

Obama's plan, while ambitious in it's attempts to attack the economic problem, is throwing far too much money away that tax-payer would have actually, like, spent, which, guess what, ACTUALLY would have helped the economy. If taxpayers didn't have to pay that money, they would go out and spend it and the economy would be happier. This is all the banker's fault; let's not drop it on the heads of us, the people.

 

 

 

Bush's administration spent 3.8 trillion dollars, including the $800 billion bailout that half-of America was livid about, and in the first THREE WEEKS of Obama's administration he has already passed a trillion dollars! And he hasn't even accomplished half the things he wants; free health for all, anybody?

 

 

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is largely responsible for the excess pork-belly funding, however Obama is passing the bill without even vetoing it in order to send a clear message to Congress that this is too much. Not only that, but this is turning into a blunt monarchy. Of all the Republicans in the Senate and the House, only 3 votes for this package, and among those all of whom are known to be rather centrist.

 

 

 

To me, I think Obama has already bitterly defaulted on his promises on compromise, bipartisanship, and curing Congress of unnecessary spending and corruption. Instead, in the first 3 weeks of his administration, he has already matched 27% or so of Bush's debt, showed himself to cater to the majority, and not his own promises and ideals, and has already shunned Republicans from anything that actually matters. (Don't feed me that 'invite the Republicans to the White House' [cabbage]. That was for the cameras, nothing more.)

 

 

 

I call myself disappointed in this epic fail of a president.

[Happysniff]

But then, not many presidents are elected right in the middle of a global recession, are they?

[Riku3220]

The guy has 4 years and office and you shut him out in the first 3 weeks? Give him some time man.

[Quoi_Tu]

And here I thought I might read something interesting, instead I get Rush Limbaugh! Seriously, at least start with facts or links or something to back up your claims.

 

 

 

Personally, I don't think he's spending enough and it should be noted that the $812bil (I'm sure that number has changed) stimulus plan will be spent over two years not yesterday as you make it sound.

[magekillr]

Fail.

 

 

 

Educate yourself about recession economics, and the burden of debt:

 

 

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... -debt.html

 

 

 

You obviously have no training in economics, whatsoever.

 

 

 

McCain's Former Economic Adviser:

 

 

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/ ... nswer.html

 

 

 

[hide=]

I have been a professional economist for nearly a quarter-century, and I've never seen anything like the unraveling of our economy over the last year.

 

 

 

Even if everything breaks our way, the current downturn will easily be the longest, most severe, and broadest - crossing occupations, industries, and regions - since the Great Depression. The only way to avoid another depression is through very aggressive action by the Federal Reserve, Congress, and the administration.

 

 

 

The fiscal-stimulus plan that will soon become law, though far from perfect, is an important part of the policy response needed to shore up our sliding economy.

 

 

 

The plan includes tax cuts and government spending worth nearly $800 billion, including about $300 billion in tax cuts for individuals and businesses; $250 billion in aid to fiscally strapped state and local governments; $150 billion in various kinds of infrastructure spending; and $100 billion in income support for workers who lose jobs. By my calculations, the plan will add more than two million jobs by the end of 2010 to the number that would exist without a stimulus, and the unemployment rate will be more than a full percentage point lower.

 

 

 

Income support and aid to state and local governments will provide quick help to the economy. Without this relief, workers losing jobs have little choice but to immediately slash spending, costing the economy even more jobs. State and local governments struggling with falling tax revenues must in most cases balance their budgets by cutting payrolls and programs and raising taxes, adding to the economy's burdens. Federal help for the unemployed and for state and local governments will thus prevent even worse job losses.

 

 

 

Tax cuts stimulate job creation as individuals spend and businesses invest some of their added cash. But the near-term economic benefits of individual tax cuts are diluted, as some is saved and some used to repay debt. These are not bad things in themselves, but they do not help the economy as much as spending the money quickly.

 

 

 

The stimulus plan also helps the troubled housing and auto industries with tax breaks, including a nonrefundable tax credit worth up to $8,000 for first-time home buyers who purchase in the next year, and a write-off of state sales taxes and interest on loans to buy new vehicles.

 

 

 

The home-purchase tax credit will help some families with a down payment. Though the credit won't forestall further declines in home prices, it could break the housing market's current deflationary psychology, with many potential buyers waiting for prices to fall further. The tax break for a new vehicle purchase will provide less of a sales boost, but it won't hurt.

 

 

 

The economic benefits of infrastructure spending are generally not quick - it takes time to get these projects under way - but they will be significant, particularly for the depressed construction and manufacturing industries.

 

 

 

Because the economy will struggle well into 2011, this spending will be particularly welcome as the impact of other stimulus efforts fades. The stimulus plan has drawn criticism for its mixed bag of infrastructure targets, from roads and bridges to the electric grid and the Internet backbone. But given the uncertain returns on such projects, diversification is probably a plus. Moreover, the Japanese experience during their "lost decade" of the 1990s showed there are diminishing returns to infrastructure spending. Investing only in bridges, for example, ultimately produces bridges to nowhere.

 

 

 

There are concerns that the stimulus plan's $789 billion price tag is too large. To pay for it we will have to borrow the money, adding significantly to the government's debt load. But without a stimulus, the depression would undermine tax revenue and fuel more government spending, producing even larger deficits and debt burdens.

 

 

 

It is fortunate that we are still the global economy's triple-A credit; even though this calamity began in the United States, global investors still prefer the safety of U.S. Treasury bonds. We will thus be able to borrow the money at record-low interest rates.

 

 

 

Indeed, my most significant criticism of the current stimulus plan is that it is too small.

 

 

 

Our struggling economy will produce nearly $1 trillion less than it is capable of this year and will underperform again by at least as much in 2010. The $789 billion in spending and tax cuts to be distributed over those two years is not going to fill this expected hole in the economy. I would thus not be surprised if policymakers are forced to consider a second stimulus plan soon.

 

 

 

Nonetheless, when combined with other aggressive policy steps, including efforts to shore up the financial system and stem foreclosures, this fiscal-stimulus plan will go a long way toward relieving the current economic crisis.

[/hide]

 

 

 

This part is funny:

 

 

 

Indeed, my most significant criticism of the current stimulus plan is that it is too small.

 

 

 

Stop talking about things that you have no knowledge of.

[Quoi_Tu]

To add to magekillr, here is Greg Mankiw's idea for a stimulus plan:

 

[hide=]

Regular readers of this blog have a pretty good sense of my policy preferences. But for those occasional readers who might be stopping by, let me reiterate what I would do right now if I were the fiscal king.

 

 

 

I would institute an immediate and permanent reduction in the payroll tax, financed by a gradual, permanent, and substantial increase in the gasoline tax. I would make the two tax changes equal in present value, so while the package results in a short-run budget deficit, there is no long-term budget impact. Call it the create-jobs, save-the-environment, reduce-traffic-congestion, budget-neutral tax shift.

 

 

 

I recognize that some state governments are now struggling in light of the macroeconomic crisis. For the next two years, I would let each state governor have the authority to divert a portion of the payroll tax cut in his or her state and take the funds instead as state aid. This provision would essentially be giving governors the temporary authority to impose a payroll tax on his or her citizens, collected via the federal tax system. Those governors who think they have valuable infrastructure projects ready to go would take the money. When designing a fiscal stimulus, there is no compelling reason for one size fits all. Let each governor make a choice and answer to his or her state voters. It is called federalism.

 

 

 

Any further federal spending projects should be evaluated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. That analysis would take time, but it would ensure that the projects are not a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

 

 

Some traditional Keynesians would object on the grounds that government spending has a larger multiplier than tax cuts. Even though that is the prediction of standard Keynesian models, the evidence is not completely consistent with that conclusion, as I have discussed here in previous posts. In addition, given the lags inherent in large spending projects, and the risks inherent in hasty spending at the federal level, the case for taxes over spending as the fiscal instrument of choice is compelling. To me, at least.

 

 

 

None of this should be viewed as a substitute for fixing the banking system and trying to come up with a better process for homeowners and banks to work out mortgage loans in default. Housing and finance are the real sources of the macro problem. Any fiscal stimulus, such as the one I propose above, is only an attempt to mitigate the symptoms. Those symptoms are severe, so mitigation is fully appropriate. But fiscal policy is not a panacea for what now ails the economy.

[/hide]

 

Note that Mankiw is a conservative economist who was chief economic advisor under President Bush. I would give the states more support through federal aid and not make payroll tax cuts permanent, but I agree with a lot of his ideas.

[Wisp]

Obama has already proven himself as partisan as any president, and completely unable to deal with the rapid disappointment of his stimulus plan.

 

You're just saying things here. you don't have anything to back yourself up. You're never going to get a bill that all parties agree on, and the first bill he helped pass happened to be democratic leaning.

 

(if pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress...?)

The opposite of progress is regress. Thanks for asking.

 

This trillion-dollar plan is filled with pork barreled spending, unnecessary luxuries, and partisan fundings.

 

Would you still say it was partisan if it only funded things that you agree with? No. You wouldn't be complaining

 

 

 

And he puts a 500,000 dollar cap on CEO salaries, when he's delivering billions for vehicles for Washington execs of the Democratic party?

 

I don't completely agree with salary caps, but those two things are not at all related, and give me a source on those "billions" spent on democratic exec's vehicles.

 

Obama's plan, while ambitious in it's attempts to attack the economic problem, is throwing far too much money away that tax-payer would have actually, like, spent, which, guess what, ACTUALLY would have helped the economy.

 

I don't really see what your trying to say here. It's phrased badly, and you're saying a stimulus doesn't help at all? It's just barely been passed, we don't know what it's real effects will be.

 

And he hasn't even accomplished half the things he wants; free health for all, anybody?

 

Do you know how hard something like this would be? Do you honestly know anything about politics? Some things take time, and as you said, he's been in office for four weeks. Of course he hasn't accomplished half of what he wants.

 

Not only that, but this is turning into a blunt monarchy.

 

These politicians were voted in by the american people. It is not a monarchy. just because you don't agree with them it doesn't make it a monarchy.

 

1. a form of government in which supreme authority is held by a single hereditary ruler, such as a king

 

We are not a monarchy. Just because we voted in people who agree with a certain bill, it's not a monarchy.

 

 

showed himself to cater not to the majority but rather to his party

 

His party is the majority. Several republicans voted for the bill as well. There are are more democrats in congress than democrats, thus they are the majority. Do you expect him to not agree with the majority just to appear non-partisan?

[warri0r45]

And here I thought you might read something interesting, instead I get Rush Limbaugh! Seriously, at least start with facts or links or something to back up your claims.

 

 

 

This, and as Happysniff noted, not many presidents have had to deal with what Obama has so far. You shouldn't be surprised that he's spending so much considering the economic crisis we're in right now. The comparisons to Bush on spending are laughable to be honest. Context is everything here, and the OP has none of it.

[magekillr]

I would give the states more support through federal aid and not make payroll tax cuts permanent, but I agree with a lot of his ideas.

 

 

 

Yes, me too.

 

 

 

Here is an argument about where Keynes went wrong, and why it's been since corrected:

 

 

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... acuum.html

[raven_gaurd0]

Facts are from the latest issue of the Week.

 

 

 

I can't respond to all this, that'd be impossible since I actually have to work tonight. I will say it's kind of funny that if I insult Obama the Tip.It police come and smack me on the head. Don't get me wrong; I hate Obama and McCain and Bush and...Republicans and Democrats and everybody.

 

 

 

At any rate, I have studied economics, if but briefly. I will say that taking money out of the taxpayers hands will do nothing for the economy.

 

 

 

I don't quite understand the Hamiltonian idea of debt. It doesn't seem to work 300 years after-de-fact.

 

 

 

And when I said majority, I meant what I said, but when I said, I meant to say 'ideals.' I guess I've been out of it.

 

 

 

P.S. No, I'm about the only not-democratic person here, but I'm also not a republican, so what are you gonna do?

 

Centrists for the win!

 

 

 

And don't beat on me on the whole monarchy definition. I can't remember the name of the government type that has a large group beat on a smaller group, ignoring them completely.

 

 

 

Unless that's called democracy.

 

 

 

Oh well.

[magekillr]

I find it funny that we're all posting away on this topic, and having a debate with no one.

 

 

 

Is Tip.It all democrats :?:

 

 

 

I most certainly am not a Democrat unless by Democrat you associate the party with Dennis Kucinich. Although he's a little protectionist, and supports unions too much for my taste, everything else is great :D .

 

 

 

And no, there's a hell of a lot of conservatives here.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

At any rate, I have studied economics, if but briefly. I will say that taking money out of the taxpayers hands will do nothing for the economy.

 

That's why the government's not doing that... And we only smack you because you're wrong.

 

 

 

I would give the states more support through federal aid and not make payroll tax cuts permanent, but I agree with a lot of his ideas.

 

 

 

Yes, me too.

 

 

 

Here is an argument about where Keynes went wrong, and why it's been since corrected:

 

 

 

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... acuum.html

 

Good article and I'm pretty sure Milton Friedman was considered a god back in the 60s and 70s. In fact, people thought he had created a way to stabilize the economy until about 1979 when Carter brought in Volcker to bring down inflation and unfortunately drive us into a recession.

 

 

 

I find it funny that we're all posting away on this topic, and having a debate with no one.

 

 

 

Is Tip.It all democrats :?:

 

I'm economically conservative, socially liberal and besides that I avoid classification.

[warri0r45]

Facts are from the latest issue of the Week.

 

 

 

And what facts are those? Don't just claim that there's pork barrel and partisan spending, list off some examples so we can judge what you're talking about.

 

 

 

By the way, I'm not a Democrat. Not even American.

[raven_gaurd0]

 

Is this fat stimulus package supposed to include spending for pandemic flu research and the purchase of green, fuel-efficient government vehicles, with between $300 million to $600 million earmarked for this? Im all for supporting those goals, but do these belong in a STIMULUS plan?

 

 

 

 

That's the vehicles part. As for the rest, I don't really want to post it all...but I did find some nice Congressional Pie charts posted by CNN that details the percentiles of the spending. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1

 

 

 

And I wish I wasn't American. I wish I was back in dear ol' Dublin...

[Quoi_Tu]

 

Is this fat stimulus package supposed to include spending for pandemic flu research and the purchase of green, fuel-efficient government vehicles, with between $300 million to $600 million earmarked for this? Im all for supporting those goals, but do these belong in a STIMULUS plan?

 

 

 

 

That's the vehicles part. As for the rest, I don't really want to post it all...but I did find some nice Congressional Pie charts posted by CNN that details the percentiles of the spending. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/12/stimulus/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1

 

 

 

And I wish I wasn't American. I wish I was back in dear ol' Dublin...

 

Cool pie chart! It's hard to tell who's added what, but I'm quite upset over the 40bil taken from the state fiscal stabilization (that was the centrists) when states really need the support. States always have to have a balanced budget, so they can't go into debt when tax revenues go down like the federal government can, which means they have to cut spending. Cutting spending in a reccession is exactly what you don't do.

[magekillr]

Oh no! Providing a fleet of hybrid vehicles for our federal employs would be AWFUL!

 

 

 

It would bring down our carbon emissions, buy cars that people cannot afford right now because banks aren't loaning money, bring up demand for an industry that's currently dying and laying off employees, and be some of the first steps towards green energy! How DARE they spend this on these "pork" projects! I mean, it's not like the Postal Service is the largest federal employer in America...oh, nvm.

 

 

 

By the way, what constitutes "pork", raven? By the GOP's standards, it's anything that isn't tax cuts (which do cost money, by the way).

 

 

 

Here's what pork really is:

 

 

 

Many Republicans have been decrying the stimulus package as "pork barrel spending" and criticizing it for having too much "pork" (i.e. any line item in the bill that doesn't contain the phrase, "tax cuts," is considered pork by them). As a result, a lot of stuff had to be cut from the bill in order to get the bipartisan support needed to pass it.

 

 

 

But in actuality, a lot of the programs in the stimuuls bill aren't pork, because they AREN'T just benefiting a special constituency in exchange for political support. Increasing funding for schools, energy efficient infrastructure, and scientific research provides a net benefit to our society as a WHOLE.

 

 

 

In contrast, a lot of tax cuts that Republicans tout could easily classify as "pork" mroe than direct spending. For example, tax cuts to oil corporations are definitely pork, as they only benefit a certain constituent (the oil cos.) and usually these are given in exchange for their political support or campaign contributions.

 

 

 

So yeah, ironic that Repubilcans oppose "pork" that isn't really pork, while supporting provisions (specifically tax cuts) that could classify as "pork." Just thought I would point this out. :)

 

 

 

My friend, Evan.

[Omar]

I'm anything but a master politician/economist, in fact without Firefox's spellchecker I wouldn't have spelled that right, but I think he just wants the bill out and he wants that quickly, he's insisted on that repeatedly (unless I saw the same thing twice).

[ThurinEthir]

I find it funny that we're all posting away on this topic, and having a debate with no one.

 

 

 

Is Tip.It all democrats :?:

 

 

 

I most certainly am not a Democrat unless by Democrat you associate the party with Dennis Kucinich. Although he's a little protectionist, and supports unions too much for my taste, everything else is great :D .

 

 

 

And no, there's a hell of a lot of conservatives here.

 

Woo, Dennis Kucinich! (Heh, did you know that Viggo Mortenson, the dude who played Aragorn, supports him?)

 

I don't really classify myself. I'm all over the place. On various issues.

 

Anyway. [strangely enough], Happysniff said it well. And in the wise words of Dragoonson, "lrn2pashuns".

 

(Haha, is this my 3000th post? #-o )

[champion]

The guy has 4 years and office and you shut him out in the first 3 weeks? Give him some time man.

 

Exactly. We don't know yet how this will work out.

 

 

 

Too many "omg obama is failing" threads.

[Quoi_Tu]

I'm anything but a master politician/economist, in fact without Firefox's spellchecker I wouldn't have spelled that right, but I think he just wants the bill out and he wants that quickly, he's insisted on that repeatedly (unless I saw the same thing twice).

 

That's what he tried to do by making the bill with republican pleasing tax cuts, but the republicans didn't like it and wanted more. Sadly, he should have just opted for a trillion dollar "liberal" stimulus and then let the republicans do their thing. Oh well, live and learn.

[raven_gaurd0]

Oh no! Providing a fleet of hybrid vehicles for our federal employs would be AWFUL!

 

 

 

It would bring down our carbon emissions, buy cars that people cannot afford right now because banks aren't loaning money, bring up demand for an industry that's currently dying and laying off employees, and be some of the first steps towards green energy! How DARE they spend this on these "pork" projects! I mean, it's not like the Postal Service is the largest federal employer in America...oh, nvm.

 

 

 

By the way, what constitutes "pork", raven? By the GOP's standards, it's anything that isn't tax cuts (which do cost money, by the way).

 

 

 

Here's what pork really is:

 

 

 

Many Republicans have been decrying the stimulus package as "pork barrel spending" and criticizing it for having too much "pork" (i.e. any line item in the bill that doesn't contain the phrase, "tax cuts," is considered pork by them). As a result, a lot of stuff had to be cut from the bill in order to get the bipartisan support needed to pass it.

 

 

 

But in actuality, a lot of the programs in the stimuuls bill aren't pork, because they AREN'T just benefiting a special constituency in exchange for political support. Increasing funding for schools, energy efficient infrastructure, and scientific research provides a net benefit to our society as a WHOLE.

 

 

 

In contrast, a lot of tax cuts that Republicans tout could easily classify as "pork" mroe than direct spending. For example, tax cuts to oil corporations are definitely pork, as they only benefit a certain constituent (the oil cos.) and usually these are given in exchange for their political support or campaign contributions.

 

 

 

So yeah, ironic that Repubilcans oppose "pork" that isn't really pork, while supporting provisions (specifically tax cuts) that could classify as "pork." Just thought I would point this out. :)

 

 

 

My friend, Evan.

 

 

 

You are aware that cows provide as much environment-stabbing gas a day as a truck driving like, 20,000 miles? Why aren't we mandating that we should kill cows or...at least ship them into space so we don't have to put up with their atomic flatulence?

 

 

 

Cutting carbon emissions is great, but not in a stimulus package, and not in the middle of a global meltdown.

 

 

 

As for the rest of the 'pork', it doesn't matter if we move towards those 'great' things in society, if it comes away from the economy and the finances of those people being benefited, then it's not as good.

 

 

 

I guess I'm disappointed 'cause I expected Obama to try to be a mediator, but he's only gone with what I expected - left wing policies. Which is, you know, his choice, but against his campaign promises of bipartisanship.

 

 

 

And for the LAST damn time, I am NOT right-winged. I am CENTRIST. I frown upon the Republicans being pouting little [puncture]s just as much as the next guy.

[Wisp]

 

You are aware that cows provide as much environment-stabbing gas a day as a truck driving like, 20,000 miles? Why aren't we mandating that we should kill cows or...at least ship them into space so we don't have to put up with their atomic flatulence?

 

 

For the same reason we're not banning cars. In today's society, they're basically a necessity. But people are working on ways of reducing cow's impact, just as there are people trying to make cars more efficient.

 

Cutting carbon emissions is great, but not [snip] in the middle of a global meltdown.

 

Couldn't a global meltdown be, say, the ice caps melting?

 

 

 

I expected Obama to try to be a mediator, but he's only gone with what I expected

 

...

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: As for you being centrist, I have yet to see one liberal view you have had, in any of your posts on these forums. I might have missed something, but...

[War_Junky_91]

The guy has 4 years and office and you shut him out in the first 3 weeks? Give him some time man.

 

Exactly. We don't know yet how this will work out.

 

 

 

Too many "omg obama is failing" threads.

 

All the Dems were taking pot shots at Bush during his term, now all the Repubs are taking shots at Obama, what goes around comes around. I am personally aiming for the kidneys :twisted:

[fastortoise]

The basic gist of the first post:

 

"URP URP DUUURRRR DERP DERP DERP DERP"

 

 

 

Trying to talk about Obama's failures when you aren't even close to being at his level of intellect and understanding is laughable. :arrow: :lol:

[magekillr]

The guy has 4 years and office and you shut him out in the first 3 weeks? Give him some time man.

 

Exactly. We don't know yet how this will work out.

 

 

 

Too many "omg obama is failing" threads.

 

All the Dems were taking pot shots at Bush during his term, now all the Repubs are taking shots at Obama, what goes around comes around. I am personally aiming for the kidneys :twisted:

 

 

 

Might you reconsider your avatar?

 

 

 

and it could be because Bush was a total failure at the end of and during his tenure, where criticism was warranted. I've already criticized Obama where I felt it was warranted, such as not listening to Paul Volcker enough, his continuous raids of Pakistan, and his hiding Bush from being convicted of War Crimes.