Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[YSSMAN]

Have you written your Congressman (woman?) or Senator? Normally that is the easiest way to go about doing things, but since you are in that "lefty" California, your screams will likely be only a muffle by the time it hits Washington. You can contact Speaker Pelosi directly as well, which I have done before, but in terms of receiving an actual response, your actual representative(s) is a much better option.

President Obama did have a website set up for the stimulus plan, and for the life of me, I can't remember the address. I got an e-mail about it the other day, he is asking his volunteers to set-up "Stimulus Meetings" in our neighborhoods to discuss the ideas and then send them in to his administration. Otherwise, there are always the standard methods of contact to the White House, none of which I've attempted before.

I'd suggest being active within the party of your choice, contacting the leadership there, but again, that is something I've never really attempted before either. My own personal beefs with both Republicans and Democrats on the whole limit me mostly to the personal contacts, as (like you pointed out), the parties rarely give a damn about one person versus the entire group of people. This generally comes down to a belief of what can (or cannot) be done on the local level, and for the most part, its a pretty complex situation. If you're looking to tell your congressmen that you don't want the bill to pass, I think you're going to face an uphill battle. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of the pieces of the bill, perhaps to push it toward a more conservative view, I think you would have a greater success. But, with the Republicans clearly in the minority at this point, we're going to have to let the Democrats conduct this train ride for now.

===

I think at this point we have to reserve some sense of hope that the Senate will fix a lot of the issues with the House bill. What successes they may actually have seems a bit, shall we say, "vague" as those changes need to go back and be re-routed through the House. I do not see this being passed and on the Presidents desk by the 16th as Pelosi had "promised" a few weeks back, but it seems somewhat likely that we will have a tangible piece of legislation in place by March.

My views on infrastructure spending has already been squashed, and I have to admit that I have a lot of mixed feelings on the new car tax break deal as well.

 

[Touring Mars]

How can I actually make a difference with visible results?

Emigrate.

 

[livemusic]

Emigrate.

 

[Vasco]

Become a senator?

 

[YSSMAN]

Coming from the land of Feinstein and Pelosi, yeah...

====

I've been trying to do some reading on the Republican stimulus plan that is being kicked around in the Senate right now, especially after reading parts of Obama's OpEd in the Washington Post this morning. Many of their propositions, at least in my opinion, are beyond reasonable and should play a major part in the Senate version of the package. At half the cost, implementing the ideas to save money would be smart in the long run, but at this point, I think both sides have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Sad to know, of course, that we won't be able to pick and choose between them.

 

[Omnis]

I have a question.

How do I, an American citizen, get my voice heard in opposition to Obama's stimulus spending bill? Obviously, throwing money to any political party is not the correct way to go. Bitching about it here on GTP is futile as well. How can I actually make a difference with visible results?

The only way is to kick out the reps. You can meet with precinct leadership all the way up to state conferences with like-minded people to organize the replacement plan. It won't be long until the next election cycle.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd try visiting the local congressional office as well, most districts will have one or two depending on how big it is. I know my Congressman holds a luncheon once or twice a year, and normally, he talks to everyone who goes. That would be a good way to talk to them directly.

 

[Omnis]

I'd try visiting the local congressional office as well, most districts will have one or two depending on how big it is. I know my Congressman holds a luncheon once or twice a year, and normally, he talks to everyone who goes. That would be a good way to talk to them directly.

Yeah, that's a very good idea too. Most of the time it costs thousands of dollars to be able to speak to a federal rep.

 

[ledhed]

Like Obama told the Republicans -----we tried your way and the " People " rejected it and elected ME ....

So we do it different .

look at the bright side ..

He forces this through --its certain to fail --the Dems get to now OWN the problem .
It becomes the Obama disaster .

The pedulum swings back to the republicans and dems get tossed out next election ..

But this nothing for any of the people who actually NEED the help --and the economic stymulus ---

Sadly we NEED Mr President OBAMA to NOT FAIL .
And hopefully he is as smart as he says he is and strong enough to play enough Politics to include the best bits from the Republicans --and his OWN Democrats ( conservitives) who are revolting against the Pelosi and Reid crowd .

Political Darwinism says that this failure by the Dems is needed as an enema to remove the Pelosi -Reid influence --but in my opinion the cost is too high .

I think the electorate can see well enough ( look at how fast support for a VERY popular Presidents plan is dwindling ) to finally hold the correct party responsible --as I believe they have done by paying back the Republican party for all its blundering .

You have to hope the Guy gets this RIGHT we are NOT going to get more chances --we do not have unlimited cash supply --and are even NOW in danger of hyper inflation because of our deficit spending.

 

[Prosthetic]

Sadly we NEED Mr President OBAMA to NOT FAIL .

Sadly? I don't know why you would want a president to fail.

 

[YSSMAN]

Framing it as a failure on the President's behalf isn't exactly correct either. He is working with the Republicans to craft a better stimulus bill, and while they're stomping around because they're not getting their way, the Obama administration can just as easily blame this on the GOP for not getting this passed. Like it or not, whatever lands on his desk, he likely would have signed it.

But, his declaration that the "same things" won't work is a strong statement that I think will ring pretty hard with a lot of Americans. McCain's proposal yesterday flew in the face of what needs to be done, more tax cuts will not solve anything. I do appreciate the fact, however, that there are Republicans out there who are submitting a lot of good ideas... A lot of them, I believe, the Obama Administration and the Democrats are looking at.

It does look like the Senate is sorting this out a bit more nicely than the House did, particularly with the cuts that passed yesterday. But, since they made a good number of changes, we've gotta wait for the House to review the bill and then send it off to the President.

We're going to have to wait a while. With the new unemployment figures out today (600K new claims in January, national unemployment up to 7.6%), I think we need to pick up the pace a bit.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sadly? I don't know why you would want a president to fail.

He is talking about him not failing to pass this. For President Obama to show he can be the bipartisan guy he says he is and have the American confidence behind him in actually making changes he needs to make thsi stimulus bill work.

However, many people feel the stimulus bill is actually bad and may have similar long-term effects to The New Deal. That would be bad.

So, sadly, for Obama to be a successful president he needs to pass a bill that many believe could be bad for the country.

If president Obama can get to a point where his administration has Dems and Reps getting along then he may be able to actually move this country forward (I am ignoring the fact that a portion of us think Dems and Reps are Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, thus getting along may actually be bad too for the sake of my point), but for Obama to reach that point he may need to sell out our economy years down the road.

 

[Danoff]

Sadly? I don't know why you would want a president to fail.

I very much want Obama to fail in just about every goal he has set out for the economy. If he accomplishes nothing economically speaking during his entire 4 years, that is the best possible outcome.

 

[YSSMAN]

Deal Reached in Stimulus Plan

Looks like they took quite a bit of cash out of the proposal, down now to a $780 Billion price tag. According to some of the reports I've read on it, its split evenly between spending and tax cuts (about 52 v 48). Still, I'd like to hear more about where the cash is going this time, and as always, I can't wait to see who votes for it and who does not. It sounds like my favorite Senator Arlen Specter will be voting for it, which makes it good enough for me.

....Oh, and for your scary picture of the day:

A good look at the job losses we've been having. Still waiting for a small uptick.

 

[Omnis]

It sounds like my favorite Senator Arlen Specter will be voting for it, which makes it good enough for me.

That's some really flawed logic. Arlen Specter is a damn snake.

 

[YSSMAN]

Flawed logic, yes... But one of the only Republicans in the Senate I actually agree with most of the time. Although, Senator Bob Corker had a lot of great suggestions in opposition to the original House bill, and I would have preferred some of those provisions over what is currently up for a vote. But, something is being done, and at this point, all we can do is attempt to critique it enough to make sure it does what its supposed to do.

 

[Solid Fro]

Alex Rodriguez? Are you ****ing serious?

The White House Press Corps gush allowance should be capped at one per month. Add that to Obama's spending bill.

 

[YSSMAN]

Obama's got a lot of catching up to do to meet with his predecessor.

 

[nk4e]

Well, he getting the opinions of his voters for his stimulus plan.
an Increasingly tough sell\
The video of the article.

 

[Duke]

This is still nothing compared to the mid-late '70s, when we had exactly the same economic and employment conditions PLUS lending interest rates in the double digits PLUS inflation over 5%. And that was nothing compared to the actual Depression.

 

[Keef]

The guys on the radio have bee complaining about how the big media and the government are making this out to be worse than it is and terrifying people. Willie specifically cited a few of Obama's recent comments that sound like he thinks it's the end of the USA as we know it. Frankly, many Democrats' plans would be the end of the USA as we know it if they get enacted.

 

[FoolKiller]

First, I hope this stimulus bill fails horribly. As it just keeps getting rewritten until it will eventually pass (is annoyance a good reason to pass legislation?) I doubt that will happen.

So, after it actually goes through I hope that President Obama's popularity takes a nosedive. Maybe then he won't be making speeches about "Do it my way or doom and gloom be upon you." I mean, why is it that when he talks he makes it sound like he is on some enlightened path? Seriously, the only difference between him and Bush is a "Bring it on" line.

I'm sorry, but unnamed economists who say he is right means as much to me as unnamed sources in news stories.

I've got economists too, but they have names:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html

EDIT: That would make a nice avatar.

Also, has any major news outlet reported this?

 

[nk4e]

Like the last "bump" for the economy, people are going to save their money. My older brother told me to save mine if it came in. After that video I posted, it seems that people are just asking for government help. But I wonder how hard that guy looked for a job in his area. What else could we do instead of making another stimulus package? Get rid of some taxes? I wonder how much of a stir will come up if we did.

 

[YSSMAN]

Frankly, many Democrats' plans would be the end of the USA as we know it if they get enacted.

You mean socialism? Meh, we're already there.

=-=-=-=-=-=

The comment thing is an interesting point, however. There is always going to be a lot of doom and gloom no matter who is in power whenever they want legislation to get passed, thats politics, but the problem here is that its something that they [the Obama Administration] spoke out against.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of discussions on both sides as to what has actually happened, what is happening, and what will happen. To that point, I normally shrug up my shoulders and say "I dunno!" but then again, I'm not an economist. But, if what Rep. Paul Kanjorski was talking about was true (check out at 2:10):



We were in it a lot worse than we originally thought.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

RE: Economist List

Interesting, and I'm unaware of CNBC, ABC or MSNBC (the three that I watch the most right now) talk about it. My guess is that if you asked every college professor of economics, they're going to have very different opinions of what exactly should (or should not) be done. Throw the history professors on there, particularly those who deal mainly with economics, and my guess is that it would be radically different.

But, the point is a good one. I'd be interested to see a big list of everything, but thats unrealistic. Particularly those who would want more in the stimulus bill. I already know Paul Krugman would be on the top of that list, but he already does that anyway. Robert Reich is usually one of my trusted yard sticks for economics, and I can't recall hearing him talk about how he felt about the plan (although his blog makes him sound cautiously optimistic).

The plan passed without much of a problem today in the Senate, it will be interesting to see if things get changed at all when it returns to the House.

 

[Omnis]

Guess what, Keynesians? The market hates your meddling:



That's the lowest the market's been since the first half of this bailout.

 

[Vasco]

Guess what, Keynesians? The market hates your meddling:



That's the lowest the market's been since the first half of this bailout.

Look on the bright side, now's the time you guys should be investing!

 

[FoolKiller]

The comment thing is an interesting point, however. There is always going to be a lot of doom and gloom no matter who is in power whenever they want legislation to get passed, thats politics, but the problem here is that its something that they [the Obama Administration] spoke out against.

Dave Ramsey was on GMA this morning and was saying that Obama was all about hope and now he has turned to all doom and gloom. He also pointed out the folly of encouraging broke people to buy houses with bad credit, which is how we got here to begin with.

Plus, I have to ask, what is the difference between pushing your agenda through fear of terrorism and pushing your agenda through fear of economic collapse? It is still the politics of fear. There is no hope and no change with this administration so far.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of discussions on both sides as to what has actually happened, what is happening, and what will happen. To that point, I normally shrug up my shoulders and say "I dunno!" but then again, I'm not an economist.

When I am given a choice between people who have made studying these things their career and a bunch of politicians I will not trust the liars and crooks. My boss has a saying: "Trust the smartest guy in the room." The smartest guy for this situation is not President Obama.

RE: Economist List

Interesting, and I'm unaware of CNBC, ABC or MSNBC (the three that I watch the most right now) talk about it. My guess is that if you asked every college professor of economics, they're going to have very different opinions of what exactly should (or should not) be done. Throw the history professors on there, particularly those who deal mainly with economics, and my guess is that it would be radically different.

I think the most telling thing is that initially it was just people who were associated with or contacted by the CATO Institute about this, but then at the bottom is a list of economists who wanted their name added too after it had been posted.

But the biggest thing it points out is that President Obama is full of crap. He will spew whatever sounds good, like the politician he is.

I am not sure why history professors that study economics would see it differently, unless they study the economics of hope. General history professors, sure I can see them saying how Keynesian policies raised hope, but anyone who studies actual economics can tell you it was false hope.

But really look at some of the names on that list. There are some big universities, and even Noble Laureates listed on there. This isn't some rag tag group of rabble rousers. These are guys that presidents normally take advice from.

But, the point is a good one. I'd be interested to see a big list of everything, but thats unrealistic. Particularly those who would want more in the stimulus bill. I already know Paul Krugman would be on the top of that list, but he already does that anyway. Robert Reich is usually one of my trusted yard sticks for economics, and I can't recall hearing him talk about how he felt about the plan (although his blog makes him sound cautiously optimistic).

The fact that one was interviewed by Clinton and the other hired by Clinton tells me neither should be trusted, not even as a yardstick.

The plan passed without much of a problem today in the Senate, it will be interesting to see if what things get changed at all when it returns to the House.

Fixed that for ya.

Guess what, Keynesians? The market hates your meddling:



That's the lowest the market's been since the first half of this bailout.

I saw that and just thought that if the market runs from your policy it is the wrong policy.


The one thing that has come out of this is that I have had all my thoughts about President Obama confirmed. No hope and no change.

 

[YSSMAN]

It is still the politics of fear. There is no hope and no change with this administration so far.

I agree, and its a disappointing turn. NPR and MSNBC have already called him out on it, which was nice to see. However, I believe his point is to stress the importance of getting the bill passed, "whats at stake" otherwise... Not to terrorize us all into following his deal. Because, if that was the case, its already failed. Most Americans aren't completely in favor of the bill as it stands.

My boss has a saying: "Trust the smartest guy in the room." The smartest guy for this situation is not President Obama.

No argument from me there either. I would look toward Secretary Geithner in this situation, he appears to know what hes doing based on what I've watched while he met with the House and Senate. All of that said, I have no idea who is making up his [Obama] economic advisory team. Although I'd be interested to see what some of his other cabinet secretaries has to say.

I am not sure why history professors that study economics would see it differently, unless they study the economics of hope. General history professors, sure I can see them saying how Keynesian policies raised hope, but anyone who studies actual economics can tell you it was false hope.

Depends on the professor, I think. The two heads of the History Department here at Aquinas represent both ends of the spectrum, and while one would focus more on the "hope" side of the New Deal (implying that it didn't work) and the other would focus more on how it helped to get things moving. Throw the Political Science people on there, and it gets even more messed up. My favorite Poli Sci professor would likely be tearing his hair out over the way in which it is being handled, but I have a sneaking suspicion that despite his generally conservative viewpoint on economic issues (conservative enough where he voted against Reagan in '84 because of the debt), he would likely be in favor of a modest stimulus.

All of which reminds me: I love my little Aquinas College

=-=-=-=-=

But really look at some of the names on that list. There are some big universities, and even Noble Laureates listed on there. This isn't some rag tag group of rabble rousers. These are guys that presidents normally take advice from.

Certainly so, and I was surprised to see the MSU guy on there. But, the deal with the CATO Institute is that it is certainly right of center, and that doesn't make it completely correct (that depends on your economic outlook). I'm actually a CED (Committee For Economic Development) kind of guy (centrist) when it comes to economics, and they have a very interesting writeup about our current situation right now.

Its a problem that won't go away easily, and I'm looking forward to hearing more of the debate in Congress, on the internet, through the TV and over the airwaves.

 

[Omnis]

So far, the only guys who have been correct about everything are the people at the Mises Institute. Cato has been full of crap a few times recently, but they are generally fine with economics.

I think what's being played out here is an epic showdown between the economics of Ludwig von Mises and Irving Fisher. Austrians vs. Neoclassicals. We know Keynes was wrong. Now we gotta see if Fisher was also wrong.

Frankly, I can't stand political science/scientists. It's the science of rationalizing fallacy.

 

[Sage]