Is the “O” channeling CoRev and other traditional conservatives? Nope!!!!! What I said he needs to do: “ The short term kick is in tax incentives. Get businesses buying new capital improvments by allowing a short write off and other business tax incentives. Few of business incentives will work without consumer incentives. Give consumers the payroll tax free day(s) and other incentives to go spend. Incentivize banks to make loans to consumers and small businesses, some kind of Federal guarantee program perhaps. “
What “O” said on business incentives: “…tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”
What “O” said on consumer incentives: “To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts.“
And not too much more. He has missed the boat here. We need more actual incentives for people to feel comfortable in spending.
What “O” said on bank lending incentives: U Huh! Not much. We have to look back up at the small business incentive to find any baning inctive reference: “I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”
My conclusion: As a complete program needed to move this nation forward economically, his economic “pivot” is incomplete and wrongly focused. He should have an even handed approach on the three fronts I identified. Nearly all of his attentuion is focused on small businesses.
Not enough! The origin of this economic hole may not be of his making, but he has yet to stop digging (continued to demonize banks and businesses), and his backfilling misuses the available tools.
Is the “O” channeling CoRev and other traditional conservatives? Nope!!!!! What I said he needs to do: “ The short term kick is in tax incentives. Get businesses buying new capital improvments by allowing a short write off and other business tax incentives. Few of business incentives will work without consumer incentives. Give consumers the payroll tax free day(s) and other incentives to go spend. Incentivize banks to make loans to consumers and small businesses, some kind of Federal guarantee program perhaps. “
What “O” said on business incentives: “…tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”
What “O” said on consumer incentives: “To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts.”
And not too much more. He has missed the boat here. We need more actual incentives for people to feel comfortable in spending.
What “O” said on bank lending incentives: — — — Uh Huh! Not much. We have to look back up at the small business incentive to find any banking incentive reference: “I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”
My conclusion: As a complete program needed to move this nation forward economically, his economic “pivot” is incomplete and wrongly focused. He should have an even handed approach on the three fronts I identified. Nearly all of his attention is focused on small businesses. Centering attention here without expanding incentives for consumers is short sighted.
Not enough! The origin of this economic hole may not be of his making, but he has yet to stop digging (continued to demonize banks and businesses), and his backfilling misuses the available tools.
Very revealiing. Matthews admits to being very “aware” that Obama is black “until tonight.” Dumb comment typical of Matthews but very revealing about attitudes. There is also a comment on the speech in the UK Guardian in which it is revealed the GOP had to firmly order its people to “be respectful” of Obama. Needless to say their natural attitude would be disrespectful since he’s just a “black”. A white President, even from the opposite party, would always be treated with respect. But not a black. And Alito telling Obama what he said is “not true.” The Supreme Court is not supposed to sass the Presidency. The President had ample precedent to critcize the court decision. Roosevelt did it and people only objected when he tried to “pack the court” with new justices. Obama has never suggested that. (But it might be a good idea to revive, LOL).
Interesting and intelligent comment. I disagree with two things: one I see no reason not to “demonize” the banks. They deserve it and they can take it and it is needed. To soften them up for genuiine reform of the sector that is long overdue. Re consumers. Yes the need to start spending, but with what? Most are tapped out. One way would be a (temporary if need be) negative income tax. Start giving money to the bottom rung. They will spend it since they need to. Lots of them don’t have enough income to pay taxes. So tax cuts don’t mean much. Again, I think he avoids doing things for the poorest since many of them are black and the “welfare” issue would arise.
MM, your racism is getting to be truly boring. Go to the demographic stats of the lowest income quintile and see what that is made of. Hint: I think you will find, the young worker, old worker, handicapped worker, immigrants (illegal and not) and now the unemployed worker are the major demographics of the lowest quintile.
Once this side of the demographic is examined, ask this question: How do we change it? Can we make young folks older and more experienced? Can we make older folks no longer working or choosing to work only part time younger? Can and should we make illegals legal? How can we get the unemployed employed. Darn!!!! We just went full circle on the SOTU address and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Your fixation on race is more an indictment of you than anything else.
people always have incentive. what they need is money and a sense of security.
now i could tax the people with the money who are afraid to spend it, and use it to hire people to do work that needs to be done. and those people would spend it. guaranteed.
Cantie, sorry I disagree. The market was holding it’s ground watching closely in anticipation of “his” speech. Well they’ve heard it. On top of “his” speech we have the latest unemployment numbers. Up 20K over estimates.
How long is it going to take before we have elected Dems rebeling, joining the tea partiers in denouncing the current policies? Moreover, where are all the “O” supporters today?
Cactus, this administration may prove many of your book’s economic findings are invalid. I won’t repeat my test tube analogy for this administrations, but Dem policies are proving to be bad for short term economic improvement. Prat, they are good enough to make a long term improevment. At this point I have ZERO faith this Prez and his economic advisors understand they are on the less perfect track.
CoRev (Why did this admin ignore for a year job creation policies?)
After a few years, I didn’t bother listening to W’s SOTU speeches. Last night I skipped the first SOTU by Obama. The reason? I had no reason to fear an upside surprise from my existing low expectations.
now i could tax the people with the money who are afraid to spend it, and use it to hire people to do work that needs to be done. and those people would spend it. guaranteed.
You could also give them tax breaks for spending their money or strong arm them and force them to consume.
I think you may have missed some of the treatment of President Clinton. Dick Armey saying “he’s not my president”, for instance. “Dope smoking, draft dodging, skirt-chasing” (or womanizing, I can’t remember). Respectful treatment? Not that I remember.
The reason the US will never get a handle on the budget is because about the only thing sure to pass in Congress is more spending. Less spending is political suicide, so problems, etc., are always solved by more spending. Result: no budget control. The only way then to save the situation is more taxes of some sort or benefit cuts that always hit the poor who have little political clout. System broken. How to fix? Who knows?
Johnson broke it with his great society program and no president has tried to bring the budget in long term balance since then. The key is don’t try to do too much.
It’s not respectful but it’s all true. Obama does not have the same negative characteristics so he doesn’t have it coming. Of course when Obama says he could be like a useless president that doesn’t do anything to get high ratings the only president like that was Clinton (unless you can think of anyone else in recent history). So if you’re out there slinging it don’t cry when some falls back on you.
KH, when does it become disrespectful when citing those things a Prez admits or is caught doing? Why no comment on the outstanding economic plan in the speech?
Another hilarious funny: of course Karzai thinks NATO should stay; he is NATO’s puppet and if NATO leaves he’s finished. Like our puppet in S. Vietnam was finished when the US withdrew from that failed bit of empire. I suspect Karzai, like all puppets is in a pretty panic, fearing he might be abandoned to the Taliban. Really really hilarious.
I had a really jolly laugh watching TV and the stony faced military brass glaring straight ahead as Obama said he was going to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I guess they think it might destroy the army and of course I think that would be a wonderful thing. There is more than one way to stop our imperialism. Destroying army discipline might be the best backdoor way to that end. LOL.
I think I already pointed out how amusing this is. Karzai seems to think the puppet can give orders to the puppeteer. He needs to remember what happend to Thieu in Vietnam when Unkie Sam, the puppeteer, decided to run.
Like poster “Greg”, I too skipped the SOTU speech. I don’t think I missed much.
It will take more than prayers to get this economy back on track. The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts. And the GOP’s policy prescriptions are a bad joke. You can’t take them seriously…even Cantor flew off the handle at Boehner when he put out that four page cartoon plan with no numbers. And centrist Democrats are scared witless and worried about saving their own skins in November…as though voters actually have a clue.
Obama’s economic advisors are smart folks and they understand macro as well as anybody. They know that this won’t work. It’s fake economics. One thing that Obama should do is fire Rahm Emmanuel because he’s largely responsible for a lot of the tactical screw-ups on the stimulus and on healthcare. Obama needs to nominate him for some ambassador post in Togo.
2slugs, nope, I can find no evidence that his staff is bright. If anything another year of this will, I think, disprove much of their economic policy.
Forever blaming the lack of success on the Repubs when Dems have had a super majority is becoming comical. Even more comical is comparing the conservative/Repub offerings with what we have in place, and their results.
I tried to contrast my solution versus the “O’s”. “O” incentivizes the small business community while ignoring the consumers and providing only lip surface support for the lending institutions is extraordinarily short sighted. And I can only assume the initiatives announced in the SOTU was recommended by his “bright advisers.” Bright maybe. Right/correct, not so we can tell, yet.
So, I agree, what was presented in the SOTU is too little and misdirected.
Which leaves me that same ole question: Why did he ignore a jobs policy for at least 1/2 of 2009, while pursuing a health care policy that few voters wanted? Why would a compassionate Dem forget the agony that policy decision has created? Could it have been politics?
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future and the negative impact coming a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels; and I don’t see policy to increase values in the stock market (you we have not had capital gain in the last 10 years.
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be exlained by it causing individual to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. A permanet tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a stong sustainble positive effect on the economy (unless is coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvment in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand, and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future and the negative impact coming from a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values and holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels; and I don’t see policy to increase values in the stock market (you know we have not had capital gain in the last 10 years.
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be exlained by it causing individual to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. A permanet tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a stong sustainble positive effect on the economy (unless is coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvment in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan, and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand, and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future, and the negative impact coming from a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values and holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels, and I don’t see a policy to increase values in the stock market (capital gains just did a lost decade).
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be explained by it causing individuals to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. Thus it does a poor job jump starting the economy. A permanent tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals, and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a strong sustainable positive effect on the economy (unless it coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvement in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
On the stimulus package I primarily blame Team Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans were mostly a nuissance. Obama made a mistake in wanting some veneer of bipartisanship, so he settled for a stimlus package that was way too small and focused too much on tax cuts. On healthcare the Republicans were consciously obstructionist, and Sen. Grassley now admits that he was lying all along when he said that he supported a mandate to buy insurance. He was only trying to stall for time and slow walk the bill to death.
Investment demand will not pick up until one of two things happen. Either capital has to substantially depreciate or there has to be a pick up in demand. Export demand is not going to happen and will not lead us out of the recession. Consumer demand shows no sign of coming back and all of this talk about deficit reductions only makes the problem worse because rational consumers will increase saving, which is the last thing we need right now. That leaves the government as the only other source of aggregate demand.
The voters wanted both job creation and healthcare reform. Ironically, by a wide margin most of the folks who voted for Brown want him to support healthcare reform even though Brown campaigned against it. Hey…voters are stupid and angry voters are especially stupid. And most voters still want healthcare reform…again, by a wide margin.
And your thesis is inconsistent. On the one hand you claim that most voters oppose healthcare reform; and then you claim that Obama pushed healthcare reform for political reasons. Huh??? Aside from being wrong, this doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t even make cynical sense.
On your analysis of the stimulus package, we will just have to disagree. I truly believe it is malformed and misdirected. Still even after last night.
2slugs said: “Investment demand will not pick up until one of two things happen. Either capital has to substantially depreciate or there has to be a pick up in demand. ” I agree, but I think there is a third need, lending incentives for banks. Giving more $s to banks does not guarantee they will start lending. I think here a loan guarantee program would help. to make it politicallu palatable, I would restrict any loans from being resold.
2slugs saying this is just plain arrogant: “ Hey…voters are stupid and angry voters are especially stupid. ” It represents the problem with the Dem leadership. We can already see where that attitude has gotten them. With any luck that attitude will continue till Nov.
As to my thesis, polls prove that most voters disapprove of that current versions of the health care bill(s). most voters do support some health care reform, just not what has morphed in the Dem process.
Again, it is getting comical re: blaming any action on the repubs. Super majorities don’t need minorities to pass good (or at least reasonable) laws. Let’s see what happens after “O” attends the Repub retreat tomorrow.
Few hour ago news from the How Avoid Recovery front:
Jan. 28, 2010 Las Vegas Review-Journal
WASHINGTON — Nevada lost out on another multimillion-dollar stimulus program when the government doled out $8 billion for high-speed rail projects today and a route being planned for a magnetic levitation train between Las Vegas and Southern California was deemed ineligible.
The denial of $83 million in coveted federal funds that might have been used to create work and advance a futuristic mode of travel for casino-bound tourists set off a round of finger pointing.
it waz really great but really long
Is the “O” channeling CoRev and other traditional conservatives? Nope!!!!! What I said he needs to do: “ The short term kick is in tax incentives. Get businesses buying new capital improvments by allowing a short write off and other business tax incentives. Few of business incentives will work without consumer incentives. Give consumers the payroll tax free day(s) and other incentives to go spend. Incentivize banks to make loans to consumers and small businesses, some kind of Federal guarantee program perhaps. “
What “O” said on business incentives: “…tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”
What “O” said on consumer incentives: “To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts.“
And not too much more. He has missed the boat here. We need more actual incentives for people to feel comfortable in spending.
What “O” said on bank lending incentives: U Huh! Not much. We have to look back up at the small business incentive to find any baning inctive reference: “I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”
My conclusion: As a complete program needed to move this nation forward economically, his economic “pivot” is incomplete and wrongly focused. He should have an even handed approach on the three fronts I identified. Nearly all of his attentuion is focused on small businesses.
Not enough! The origin of this economic hole may not be of his making, but he has yet to stop digging (continued to demonize banks and businesses), and his backfilling misuses the available tools.
Here’s a tag cloud of Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address:
http://robvstate.com/2010/01/27/tag-cloud-of-obamas-2010-state-of-the-union-address/
Is the “O” channeling CoRev and other traditional conservatives? Nope!!!!! What I said he needs to do: “ The short term kick is in tax incentives. Get businesses buying new capital improvments by allowing a short write off and other business tax incentives. Few of business incentives will work without consumer incentives. Give consumers the payroll tax free day(s) and other incentives to go spend. Incentivize banks to make loans to consumers and small businesses, some kind of Federal guarantee program perhaps. “
What “O” said on business incentives: “…tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit – one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment; and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.”
What “O” said on consumer incentives: “To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts.”
And not too much more. He has missed the boat here. We need more actual incentives for people to feel comfortable in spending.
What “O” said on bank lending incentives: — — — Uh Huh! Not much. We have to look back up at the small business incentive to find any banking incentive reference: “I’m proposing that we take $30-billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.”
My conclusion: As a complete program needed to move this nation forward economically, his economic “pivot” is incomplete and wrongly focused. He should have an even handed approach on the three fronts I identified. Nearly all of his attention is focused on small businesses. Centering attention here without expanding incentives for consumers is short sighted.
Not enough! The origin of this economic hole may not be of his making, but he has yet to stop digging (continued to demonize banks and businesses), and his backfilling misuses the available tools.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/27/msnbcs_matthews_on_obama_i_forgot_he_was_black_tonight.html
Very revealiing. Matthews admits to being very “aware” that Obama is black “until tonight.” Dumb comment typical of Matthews but very revealing about attitudes. There is also a comment on the speech in the UK Guardian in which it is revealed the GOP had to firmly order its people to “be respectful” of Obama. Needless to say their natural attitude would be disrespectful since he’s just a “black”. A white President, even from the opposite party, would always be treated with respect. But not a black. And Alito telling Obama what he said is “not true.” The Supreme Court is not supposed to sass the Presidency. The President had ample precedent to critcize the court decision. Roosevelt did it and people only objected when he tried to “pack the court” with new justices. Obama has never suggested that. (But it might be a good idea to revive, LOL).
Interesting and intelligent comment. I disagree with two things: one I see no reason not to “demonize” the banks. They deserve it and they can take it and it is needed. To soften them up for genuiine reform of the sector that is long overdue. Re consumers. Yes the need to start spending, but with what? Most are tapped out. One way would be a (temporary if need be) negative income tax. Start giving money to the bottom rung. They will spend it since they need to. Lots of them don’t have enough income to pay taxes. So tax cuts don’t mean much. Again, I think he avoids doing things for the poorest since many of them are black and the “welfare” issue would arise.
MM, your racism is getting to be truly boring. Go to the demographic stats of the lowest income quintile and see what that is made of. Hint: I think you will find, the young worker, old worker, handicapped worker, immigrants (illegal and not) and now the unemployed worker are the major demographics of the lowest quintile.
Once this side of the demographic is examined, ask this question: How do we change it? Can we make young folks older and more experienced? Can we make older folks no longer working or choosing to work only part time younger? Can and should we make illegals legal? How can we get the unemployed employed. Darn!!!! We just went full circle on the SOTU address and jobs, jobs, jobs.
Your fixation on race is more an indictment of you than anything else.
The stock market is grading the SOTU, Dow down 118, Nas down 41.
CoRev,
I think its a coincidence. Obama’s speech was predictable.
CoRev
people always have incentive. what they need is money and a sense of security.
now i could tax the people with the money who are afraid to spend it, and use it to hire people to do work that needs to be done. and those people would spend it. guaranteed.
CoRev
some people’s fixation on race is a bit outdated. We have a black President, for God’s sake.
Cantie, sorry I disagree. The market was holding it’s ground watching closely in anticipation of “his” speech. Well they’ve heard it. On top of “his” speech we have the latest unemployment numbers. Up 20K over estimates.
How long is it going to take before we have elected Dems rebeling, joining the tea partiers in denouncing the current policies? Moreover, where are all the “O” supporters today?
Cactus, this administration may prove many of your book’s economic findings are invalid. I won’t repeat my test tube analogy for this administrations, but Dem policies are proving to be bad for short term economic improvement. Prat, they are good enough to make a long term improevment. At this point I have ZERO faith this Prez and his economic advisors understand they are on the less perfect track.
CoRev
(Why did this admin ignore for a year job creation policies?)
After a few years, I didn’t bother listening to W’s SOTU speeches. Last night I skipped the first SOTU by Obama. The reason? I had no reason to fear an upside surprise from my existing low expectations.
Coberly,
now i could tax the people with the money who are afraid to spend it, and use it to hire people to do work that needs to be done. and those people would spend it. guaranteed.
You could also give them tax breaks for spending their money or strong arm them and force them to consume.
GregL,
I watched the entire SOTU (since I could not find Family Guy on any of the cable networks)
I think you may have missed some of the treatment of President Clinton. Dick Armey saying “he’s not my president”, for instance. “Dope smoking, draft dodging, skirt-chasing” (or womanizing, I can’t remember). Respectful treatment? Not that I remember.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_senate_spending_freeze;_ylt=AvCAEjsj5EtPpaB4GmPSUVWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM2Ym4wMmhxBGFzc2V0A3BvbGl0aWNvLzIwMTAwMTI4LzMyMTQzBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDNQRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDcmVsYXRlZA—
The reason the US will never get a handle on the budget is because about the only thing sure to pass in Congress is more spending. Less spending is political suicide, so problems, etc., are always solved by more spending. Result: no budget control. The only way then to save the situation is more taxes of some sort or benefit cuts that always hit the poor who have little political clout. System broken. How to fix? Who knows?
Margery,
Johnson broke it with his great society program and no president has tried to bring the budget in long term balance since then. The key is don’t try to do too much.
Kharris,
“Dope smoking, draft dodging, skirt-chasing” (or womanizing, I can’t remember). Respectful treatment?
It’s not respectful but it’s all true. Obama does not have the same negative characteristics so he doesn’t have it coming. Of course when Obama says he could be like a useless president that doesn’t do anything to get high ratings the only president like that was Clinton (unless you can think of anyone else in recent history). So if you’re out there slinging it don’t cry when some falls back on you.
KH, when does it become disrespectful when citing those things a Prez admits or is caught doing? Why no comment on the outstanding economic plan in the speech?
I would hope Afghanistan fits into the topic of Obama’s speech.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_afghanistan
Another hilarious funny: of course Karzai thinks NATO should stay; he is NATO’s puppet and if NATO leaves he’s finished. Like our puppet in S. Vietnam was finished when the US withdrew from that failed bit of empire. I suspect Karzai, like all puppets is in a pretty panic, fearing he might be abandoned to the Taliban. Really really hilarious.
I had a really jolly laugh watching TV and the stony faced military brass glaring straight ahead as Obama said he was going to get rid of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I guess they think it might destroy the army and of course I think that would be a wonderful thing. There is more than one way to stop our imperialism. Destroying army discipline might be the best backdoor way to that end. LOL.
warprofiteers=warmongers
Yeah tell a politician not to be too generous with the handouts. Lotsa luck.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_afghanistan_17
I think I already pointed out how amusing this is. Karzai seems to think the puppet can give orders to the puppeteer. He needs to remember what happend to Thieu in Vietnam when Unkie Sam, the puppeteer, decided to run.
CoRev,
Like poster “Greg”, I too skipped the SOTU speech. I don’t think I missed much.
It will take more than prayers to get this economy back on track. The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts. And the GOP’s policy prescriptions are a bad joke. You can’t take them seriously…even Cantor flew off the handle at Boehner when he put out that four page cartoon plan with no numbers. And centrist Democrats are scared witless and worried about saving their own skins in November…as though voters actually have a clue.
Obama’s economic advisors are smart folks and they understand macro as well as anybody. They know that this won’t work. It’s fake economics. One thing that Obama should do is fire Rahm Emmanuel because he’s largely responsible for a lot of the tactical screw-ups on the stimulus and on healthcare. Obama needs to nominate him for some ambassador post in Togo.
2slugs, nope, I can find no evidence that his staff is bright. If anything another year of this will, I think, disprove much of their economic policy.
Forever blaming the lack of success on the Repubs when Dems have had a super majority is becoming comical. Even more comical is comparing the conservative/Repub offerings with what we have in place, and their results.
I tried to contrast my solution versus the “O’s”. “O” incentivizes the small business community while ignoring the consumers and providing only lip surface support for the lending institutions is extraordinarily short sighted. And I can only assume the initiatives announced in the SOTU was recommended by his “bright advisers.” Bright maybe. Right/correct, not so we can tell, yet.
So, I agree, what was presented in the SOTU is too little and misdirected.
Which leaves me that same ole question: Why did he ignore a jobs policy for at least 1/2 of 2009, while pursuing a health care policy that few voters wanted? Why would a compassionate Dem forget the agony that policy decision has created? Could it have been politics?
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future and the negative impact coming a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels; and I don’t see policy to increase values in the stock market (you we have not had capital gain in the last 10 years.
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be exlained by it causing individual to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. A permanet tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a stong sustainble positive effect on the economy (unless is coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvment in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
Contentious part.
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand, and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future and the negative impact coming from a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values and holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels; and I don’t see policy to increase values in the stock market (you know we have not had capital gain in the last 10 years.
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be exlained by it causing individual to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. A permanet tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a stong sustainble positive effect on the economy (unless is coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvment in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
Slugs,
The Obama Administration has the right idea, but they’re too small. Size matters. Obama blew it when he settled for a stimulus package that was way too small and way too focused on tax cuts.
They did Keynesian motivated infrastructure projects in Japan, and lost a decade.
We have a big problem with consumer demand, and at least two elements of this demand problem is lost confidence by Americans in their future, and the negative impact coming from a negative wealth effect because of fallen housing values and holdings in other assets such mutual funds.
On the latter, I don’t see how we can craft a government policy to get housing values back to their bubble levels, and I don’t see a policy to increase values in the stock market (capital gains just did a lost decade).
So this leaves us with our confidence problem. Rational expectations and the Lucas critique tells us that economic models justifying economic policy often miss the mark because the new policy changes how individuals in the economy act. I think the history of failure in Keynesian policy could be explained by it causing individuals to lose confidence since they know the only reason for economic growth is a temporary blip in unsustainable government spending. Thus it does a poor job jump starting the economy. A permanent tax cut and improvement in the regulatory environment is more effective since whatever growth that occurs is done by individuals, and this builds their confidence causing an upward spiral. So in short, economic growth by Keynesian spending programs makes us feel like losers and thus don’t have a strong sustainable positive effect on the economy (unless it coincides with a confidence builder such as winning WWII). On the other hand all the economic growth coming after an improvement in the business climate increases our confidence because we and our businesses did it on our own.
CoRev,
On the stimulus package I primarily blame Team Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans were mostly a nuissance. Obama made a mistake in wanting some veneer of bipartisanship, so he settled for a stimlus package that was way too small and focused too much on tax cuts. On healthcare the Republicans were consciously obstructionist, and Sen. Grassley now admits that he was lying all along when he said that he supported a mandate to buy insurance. He was only trying to stall for time and slow walk the bill to death.
Investment demand will not pick up until one of two things happen. Either capital has to substantially depreciate or there has to be a pick up in demand. Export demand is not going to happen and will not lead us out of the recession. Consumer demand shows no sign of coming back and all of this talk about deficit reductions only makes the problem worse because rational consumers will increase saving, which is the last thing we need right now. That leaves the government as the only other source of aggregate demand.
The voters wanted both job creation and healthcare reform. Ironically, by a wide margin most of the folks who voted for Brown want him to support healthcare reform even though Brown campaigned against it. Hey…voters are stupid and angry voters are especially stupid. And most voters still want healthcare reform…again, by a wide margin.
And your thesis is inconsistent. On the one hand you claim that most voters oppose healthcare reform; and then you claim that Obama pushed healthcare reform for political reasons. Huh??? Aside from being wrong, this doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t even make cynical sense.
On your analysis of the stimulus package, we will just have to disagree. I truly believe it is malformed and misdirected. Still even after last night.
2slugs said: “Investment demand will not pick up until one of two things happen. Either capital has to substantially depreciate or there has to be a pick up in demand. ” I agree, but I think there is a third need, lending incentives for banks. Giving more $s to banks does not guarantee they will start lending. I think here a loan guarantee program would help. to make it politicallu palatable, I would restrict any loans from being resold.
2slugs saying this is just plain arrogant: “ Hey…voters are stupid and angry voters are especially stupid. ” It represents the problem with the Dem leadership. We can already see where that attitude has gotten them. With any luck that attitude will continue till Nov.
As to my thesis, polls prove that most voters disapprove of that current versions of the health care bill(s). most voters do support some health care reform, just not what has morphed in the Dem process.
Again, it is getting comical re: blaming any action on the repubs. Super majorities don’t need minorities to pass good (or at least reasonable) laws. Let’s see what happens after “O” attends the Repub retreat tomorrow.
I like that, Cantie.
CoRev,
Thanks. I think working out the details could be a PhD dissertation.
Like poster “Greg”, I too skipped the SOTU speech. I don’t think I missed much.
How would you know?
Slugs – Like poster “Greg”, I too skipped the SOTU speech. I don’t think I missed much.
How would you know?
Few hour ago news from the How Avoid Recovery front:
Jan. 28, 2010
Las Vegas Review-Journal
WASHINGTON — Nevada lost out on another multimillion-dollar stimulus program when the government doled out $8 billion for high-speed rail projects today and a route being planned for a magnetic levitation train between Las Vegas and Southern California was deemed ineligible.
The denial of $83 million in coveted federal funds that might have been used to create work and advance a futuristic mode of travel for casino-bound tourists set off a round of finger pointing.
Complete article @: http://www.lvrj.com/news/Vegas-LA-MAGLEV-project-failes-to-get-federal-funding-82971952.html
‘How to Avoid Recovery front’