Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[TheBook]

If this passes their kids will worry too.

Bingo. I'll be the one paying for all this 10 or 20 years down the road, so this is something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

On the bill itself: I'm kind of torn here. On one hand, there's the whole "business cycle" theory, but on the other, the government could help us a bit. Granted, the government we have now thinks of itself more than the people they govern (I'm reminded of a quote from Tom Clancy's book Op-Center: "The politicians do what is best for party and agency first and second, and for the country a distand third."), but in a perfect world, we could use the help.

I hope that made sense; I was just doing some thinking out loud.

 

[nk4e]

Impeachment soon if this doesn't work. That or Obama doesn't get re-elected.

 

[Danoff]

Bingo. I'll be the one paying for all this 10 or 20 years down the road, so this is something I'm paying a lot of attention to.

On the bill itself: I'm kind of torn here. On one hand, there's the whole "business cycle" theory, but on the other, the government could help us a bit. Granted, the government we have now thinks of itself more than the people they govern (I'm reminded of a quote from Tom Clancy's book Op-Center: "The politicians do what is best for party and agency first and second, and for the country a distand third."), but in a perfect world, we could use the help.

I hope that made sense; I was just doing some thinking out loud.

Who do you think is "helping" us? We are the ones footing the bill.

Impeachment soon if this doesn't work. That or Obama doesn't get re-elected.

It can't work. It won't work. It's just wasted money. But you're right, Obama will be judged based on where our economy is in 2 and 4 years - not on whether or not his policies did anything about it.

 

[YSSMAN]

Impeachment soon if this doesn't work. That or Obama doesn't get re-elected.

Impeachment wouldn't happen over a bad stimulus bill, but certainly, rejection of office in 2012 is a distinct possibility should the stimulus fail completely.

 

[TheBook]

Who do you think is "helping" us? We are the ones footing the bill.

I think that was bad wording on my part. What I should've said was, "In a perfect world, the economy could use the assistance." Now, I know that you, me, and everyone else will (indirectly, in increased taxes and whatnot) be paying for it later, but for now, I'd willingly take that if I knew it would get this economy turned around. I figure that hopefully (and it would probably take a lot of hope at this stage), by the time the government increases the taxes to pay for it, I'll be making enough money to where it won't really matter.

Again, just writing my thoughts down as they come up here; sorry if nothing I say makes sense.

 

[YSSMAN]

What you're talking about makes sense, and if the bill would have remained focused I think it could have met your criteria easily. My problem with the bill is that they shoved all of this tax crap into it when it wasn't the main purpose of the plan in the first place. Obama attempted to do the bipartisan deal, and yet, the Republicans walked away completely. Even Rahm Emanual recognized that bipartisanship was a distraction, and thats a terrible thing.

...That being said...

If Obama, Ried and Pelosi weren't so "pushy" about getting the bill out ASAP, I'm absolutely positive that we could have had an excellent bill on the table within a month or two. Thats just my opinion, allowing for more "realistic" Republican ideas to be integrated, things that last more in the long-term, and moreover actually do something.

 

[Danoff]

I think that was bad wording on my part. What I should've said was, "In a perfect world, the economy could use the assistance."

That doesn't change anything. The economy is us. Taking money from the economy and giving it to the economy isn't helping... and borrowing from the future (like we have been for decades) to do something that isn't going to help now is a really bad idea.

Our economy needs to be set free. It doesn't need a handout, it needs to have its burdens lifted from it. This is only going to increase the burden.

If Obama, Ried and Pelosi weren't so "pushy" about getting the bill out ASAP, I'm absolutely positive that we could have had an excellent bill on the table within a month or two.

...and what would you imagine that excellent bill would look like?

 

[YSSMAN]

The short and long term goals obviously would have been job creation, if it were my bill. I would have chosen to take my time researching what is needed, and what will create the most jobs in a timely fashion. Things like the "shovel ready" infrastructure spending would have likely been the largest portion of my preferred bill, as well as a large chunk of money being placed into R&D programs around the country working on things like photovoltaic cells and lithium-ion technologies for PHV automobiles. I would have likely wanted to adopt the Republican suggestions that we lower taxes for the bottom two brackets by 5%, as well as allowing for funding to federally insure mortgages, freezing them at a 4% interest rate for 30 years.

I personally think there were reasonable, and otherwise "affordable" things that could have been done. Dodge some of the more expensive tax breaks and unnecessary spending suggestions, I believe that we could have had a pretty reasonable bill on our hands.

...Of course, that all would have assumed that we'd have worn our sanity boots and took the time to make a good one...

 

[Omnis]

Impeachment soon if this doesn't work. That or Obama doesn't get re-elected.

You can impeach your congress by getting rid of your senator and (democrat) representative in 2010.

Some of you guys might want to read Meltdown, Tom Woods's new book.

 

[nk4e]

You can impeach your congress by getting rid of your senator and (democrat) representative in 2010.

Some of you guys might want to read Meltdown, Tom Woods's new book.

Yeah. If the public does not like their government, they have the power to change it.

 

[nk4e]

After looking at the several news, I think that Obama should change things but not spoil us. I would vote for him though I don't know about this Stimulus plan of his.

 

[Omnis]

You're still on voting for him?

 

[nk4e]

I am going to watch him for awhile to see his approval rating and to see if he can actually do what he was campaigning for.

 

[Prosthetic]

At least he isn't giving all the money to the richest %5 of our population. Money sitting in CEO's banks really does a lot...

 

[FoolKiller]

I am going to watch him for awhile to see his approval rating and to see if he can actually do what he was campaigning for.

I point you back to the article I posted here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3307138&postcount=2039

He can't do the things he campaigned for. The presidency was never setup to be able to do that.

At least he isn't giving all the money to the richest %5 of our population. Money sitting in CEO's banks really does a lot...

But he did. He voted for the bank bailout. He said yes and now stands there questioning it, as if it weren't done correctly. Maybe if he actually took some effort and looked at what he was voting for he would have seen that what has happened is what he voted for.

From here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/

but it did not cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties’ presidential candidates voted for it.

“We are all going to need to sacrifice,” Democratic nominee Barack Obama of Illinois said in a floor speech. “We’re all going to need to pull our weight, because now more than ever we are all in this together. That is part of what this crisis has taught us.”

 

[nk4e]

Thanks for the article FoolKiller. 👍

 

[Duke]

At least he isn't giving all the money to the richest %5 of our population. Money sitting in CEO's banks really does a lot...

Like, ummm, who?

 

[YSSMAN]

The Consumerist Has a Rundown of What (in the Stimulus) Will Effect Us Most

* Tax credit of up to $400 for individuals, $800 for couples for 2009 and 2010. Figure your individual credit by taking 6.2% of your earned income. Note that your employer can adjust your withholdings so that the credit is returned to you over the year instead of all at once. The Associated Press says most people will see this in the form of a $13 bump in weekly paychecks starting in June, and dropping to about $7.70 a week for the duration of 2010.
* The $1000 child tax credit will be extended to more families, and if you're a poor family with three or more kids, you'll get an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit.
* No tax on the first $2400 of unemployment you receive in 2009.
* The government will subsidize up to 65% of your premium for Cobra coverage if you lost your job after Sep 1st, 2008. If you declined Cobra, you'll have 60 days to reconsider.
* $87 billion is going to help states administer Medicaid, which the AP notes "could slow or reverse some of the steps states have taken to cut the program."
* If you get food stamps, you'll get more.
* If you're drawing unemployment, expect to see $25 more per check, and the duration of the benefits has been extended.
* If you receive Social Security payments, you'll see a one-time extra payment of $250.
* If you buy a new car, light truck, recreational vehicle or motorcycle in 2009, you'll be able to deduct the state and local taxes you paid on it.
* If you add energy-efficient doodads to your home this year, you can get a tax credit to cover 30% of the costs, up to $1500.
* Pell Grants will increase slightly.
* The "Higher Education Tax Credit" will refund "up to $2,500 of the cost of college tuition and other related expenses in 2009 and 2010. You'll need to spend at least $4,000 in a single year to get the full credit."
* You can use withdrawals from a 529 college savings plan to cover computers and related technology and services for the first time in 2009 and 2010.
* First time home buyers who buy between January 1-December 1 2009 will receive a refundable tax credit of up to $8000, figured by taking 10% of the purchase price of your home. The credit doesn't have to be repaid, but you do have to keep the home for at least 3 years.
* The amount of pre-tax income you can set aside through your employer for public transit will increase to $230 a month (equivalent to what you can set aside if you drive).
* The Alternative Minimum Tax has been set aside for another year.
* $3.7 billion will go to local police programs, mostly for hiring new officers.

Many of these tax credits fade out if you make over $75,000 annually, or $150,000 as a couple.

Interesting, at least. Still wondering how much cash will be flowing into "shovel ready" programs, and what exactly the big ones will be. I heard this morning that the city of Detroit is getting a big chunk of cash to sort things out, I know the State is getting some funds as well for healthcare (among other things).

 

[Danoff]

The Alternative Minimum Tax has been set aside for another year.

So they bailed on the only thing in that list that remotely matters to me. Nice.

 

[Keef]

Do all these tax credits happens separately from filing our taxes this year? Do we now have to wait to file our taxes until these things go into effect? Are there very tricky things that you have to qualify just right for in order to get this stimulus stuff? Is the unemployment I've already filed for going to go up?

They're going to screw me out of it because I'm not 21 aren't they...

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm going to assume that it is based on your 2008 filing that you should be doing now-ish, kinda like how the last stimulus bill worked out. I imagine that the benefits are going to be here and there for most people, much like last time as well. I think the only benefits I get to take advantage of are the college tuition credits, and the tax relief for the lower income folks.

EDIT:

Although I don't know if I'll get the lower income tax benefits, since I'm still claimed by my Mom (until schools done). And I guess I don't get the tuition credit until the 2009 paperwork is filled out. Poop.

 

[FoolKiller]

The stimulus bill has been signed...but it may not be enough for the president.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18web-stim.html?hp

Obama Signs Stimulus Bill
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: February 17, 2009

DENVER — President Obama has not ruled out a second stimulus package, his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said on Tuesday, just before Mr. Obama signed his $787 billion recovery package into law with a statement that it would “set our economy on a firmer foundation.”

The president said he would not pretend “that today marks the end of our economic problems.”

“Nor does it constitute all of what we have to do to turn our economy around,” Mr. Obama said at the signing ceremony in the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. “But today does mark the beginning of the end, the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the way of playoffs.”

Mr. Gibbs, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on the way to Denver, said, “I think the president is going to do what’s necessary to grow this economy.” While “there are no particular plans at this point for a second stimulus package,” he added, “I wouldn’t foreclose it.”

Mr. Obama began the first leg of a two-day trip, using the museum ceremony to spotlight the bill’s clean-energy provisions. The president will also visit Phoenix, where he will unveil his new housing plan on Wednesday.

After a bruising legislative battle on the stimulus bill, which drew only three supporting votes from Republicans in the Senate and none in the House, the White House is trying to recapture the debate over the economy. Mr. Obama’s message is that the bill will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

While the bill has been criticized by conservatives as bloated with pork-barrel spending, it has also been criticized by the left as too tepid and not bold enough to jumpstart the economy. Mr. Gibbs’s remarks on the plane seemed to echo that concern.

In describing the package, the press secretary called it “a strong start towards economic viability” and “the beginning of getting our economy back on track.”

While he was still president-elect, Mr. Obama originally envisioned spending somewhere between $675 billion and $775 billion on the recovery package, and the final number comes close to that. But the bill approved by Congress included $70 billion in tax cuts, which some economists believe will not create as many new jobs as $70 billion in spending would.

The Denver-Phoenix swing is meant to put the spotlight on the difficulties faced by ordinary Americans around the country. In Denver, the unemployment rate jumped to 6.3 percent at the end of last year from 5.8 percent in November. The city has been hard-hit by foreclosures — in December, metropolitan Denver had more foreclosures than regular home sales — and so has Phoenix.

Before the signing ceremony, Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. toured a solar-panel installation and visited with officials of Namaste Solar, a Boulder-based company that the White House has singled out in an effort to spotlight the legislation’s clean energy provisions.

The company, owned by its staff, has grown quickly, expanding to 60 from three employees over the past three years. The White House says that without the stimulus bill, Namaste expected to lay off as many as half its workers in 2009. The bill will enable the company to hire 20 additional workers, the administration said.

It's official, he either has no understanding of economics or truly wants to put the dollar in the toilet.

EDIT: I just found this. Made me LOL.

 

[nk4e]

I wonder if President Obama would use a bus tour instead of Air Force one.

 

[Danoff]

The short and long term goals obviously would have been job creation, if it were my bill.

Ok, that's not a horrible goal. But let's see how you think we should get there...

Things like the "shovel ready" infrastructure spending would have likely been the largest portion of my preferred bill, as well as a large chunk of money being placed into R&D programs around the country working on things like photovoltaic cells and lithium-ion technologies for PHV automobiles.

Doh! Government spending to create jobs. That's not the answer. Growing government can't help us. The way to stimulate the economy and create productive jobs is to shrink government and give the money back to those who earned it in the first place. Government jobs represent an additional drag on the economy. Government = inefficiency.

I would have likely wanted to adopt the Republican suggestions that we lower taxes for the bottom two brackets by 5%, as well as allowing for funding to federally insure mortgages, freezing them at a 4% interest rate for 30 years.

Lowering the bottom tax brackets, while a fine goal, is only going to exacerbate the disconnect that most voters have with the size of government. The goal should be to approach a more level tax structure - not a more unequal tax structure.

Mortgage rates being artificially low are part of what got us into this mess. Holding them down now is an unsustainable strategy. The best thing to be done is to let the market correct - which it will be happy to do. People don't like market corrections, but it will be over much more quickly and painlessly if we just suck it up now.

Dodge some of the more expensive tax breaks and unnecessary spending suggestions, I believe that we could have had a pretty reasonable bill on our hands.

Some of the more expensive tax breaks were probably the most likely parts of the bill to create jobs. That being said, legislation is not the answer here. The bill that should have passed is an anti-legislation bill - one that repeals the government saddles that are weighing down the economy.

 

[YSSMAN]

It's official, he either has no understanding of economics or truly wants to put the dollar in the toilet.

Which is funny because the dollar is stronger than its been in years. Of course, that is playing on the weakness of the financial situations in Europe, and should that spill out, we're going to be having bigger problems than before. Until we get our bank problems figured out, we've got a long way to go. I'm interested to hear more about the Swedish plan that was being kicked around this afternoon, but, God only knows how that would even work out. They're talking $7 Trillion for nationalization versus $2 Trillion on the Geitner plan, sad to think that $2 Trillion would seem like a comparatively good idea.

All of which seems funny, at least to me, as the billions that GM and Chrysler are asking for today seem absolutely minuscule compared to whats been given out to banks, in the stimulus, and now whatever else we've got going on.

EDIT: Danoff!

Doh! Government spending to create jobs. That's not the answer.

Must depend on who you talk to, because Moody's Economy disagrees:

Government spending can go a long way if applied properly.

Lowering the bottom tax brackets, while a fine goal, is only going to exacerbate the disconnect that most voters have with the size of government. The goal should be to approach a more level tax structure - not a more unequal tax structure.

Yes, I understand you want more cuts toward the higher end of the middle. For the most part I agree with you. But, for now, I believe the bottom needs more attention than the top. Personal difference I suppose.

People don't like market corrections, but it will be over much more quickly and painlessly if we just suck it up now.

And I agree with this as well, but since that Republican idea failed, we're going without it. We do need to address the banking problem, somehow, but how it will actually end up working... Well, thats not my specialty.

I think we agree on a lot of the basic ideals, we just want to approach them differently.

 

[Omnis]

Ok, that's not a horrible goal. But let's see how you think we should get there...

I wholeheartedly agree with your post except for the first line. Yeah, job creation for the sake of job creation is a horrible goal. There are restaurants around here with a dozen employees working to serve 2 patrons. Two of them are working, 10 of them are goofing off right in front of the cash register, driving away potential patrons. At least half of them need to be fired. The goal we need is labor efficiency, not employment. Labor efficiency begets additional employment as more capital feeds growth instead of being wasted.

Which is funny because the dollar is stronger than its been in years. Of course, that is playing on the weakness of the financial situations in Europe, and should that spill out, we're going to be having bigger problems than before. Until we get our bank problems figured out, we've got a long way to go. I'm interested to hear more about the Swedish plan that was being kicked around this afternoon, but, God only knows how that would even work out. They're talking $7 Trillion for nationalization versus $2 Trillion on the Geitner plan, sad to think that $2 Trillion would seem like a comparatively good idea.

All of which seems funny, at least to me, as the billions that GM and Chrysler are asking for today seem absolutely minuscule compared to whats been given out to banks, in the stimulus, and now whatever else we've got going on.

EDIT: Danoff!



Must depend on who you talk to, because Moody's Economy disagrees:

Government spending can go a long way if applied properly.




Yes, I understand you want more cuts toward the higher end of the middle. For the most part I agree with you. But, for now, I believe the bottom needs more attention than the top. Personal difference I suppose.



And I agree with this as well, but since that Republican idea failed, we're going without it. We do need to address the banking problem, somehow, but how it will actually end up working... Well, thats not my specialty.

I think we agree on a lot of the basic ideals, we just want to approach them differently.

Paragraph for paragraph:

We're seeing deflation because everyone is going liquid to meet their demands of payment. It's like a tsunami-- the water recedes before the tidal wave comes. Just look at the data: http://mises.org/markets.asp Scroll down for the money supply graphs.

As if the Swedes are any kind of role model. The $2B is not comparatively good. Bad is bad. God, you poli sci guys really try to rationalize everything.

That Moody's chart doesn't have enough data to make a valid conclusion about spending. GDP can be arbitrary because it's based on prices that can be fixed by the government. For instance, the government can price-fix $.10 eggs to $10 per egg. And if they deliver 100,000 eggs (or rations for them or whatever), then they can say that that GDP contribution was $1,000,000 instead of its real value contribution of only $10,000. As Michael Crichton would've said, you can't apply simple graphs and measures to complex data. That's why economic planning/intervention (and global warming reactionary policies) are nothing but fail.

You say the bottom needs more attention than the top. What? Again, I think you are trippin' on that poli sci kool-aid. Everyone needs a cut. That includes Washington's budget.

Please tell me when that "Republican" idea failed. Firstly, it's capitalist common sense, not a republican idea. Would you really attribute something as great as the self-correcting market to those losers? The corrections have never ever not happened. The republican failures you might be thinking of have come from socialist executives. Hoover and Bush are the best examples. Hell, even FDR's people ran against Hoover campaigning that he was a socialist.

We can get rid of the banking problem and future crises by not giving them such protection, but ultimately we need to correct the greater problem of our flawed monetary system. Most people know more about their flat screen TV than they do about their bank. Are you really surprised that we are in our current situation?

I would suggest you read Tom Woods's new book, Meltdown. This guy is a historian and an economist (senior fellow at the LvM Institute); he knows what's up and explains it masterfully.

 

[YSSMAN]

God, you poli sci guys really try to rationalize everything.

I don't think we'd ever get around to doing it [the Swedish model], but that being said, all rational options should be considered before making the best one possible, right?

As Michael Crichton would've said, you can't apply simple graphs and measures to complex data. That's why economic planning/intervention (and global warming reactionary policies) are nothing but fail.

This is why my area of study in political science is more in foreign policy. Its a bit "easier," I find it to be more "enjoyable," and generally less politicized than economics.

Everyone needs a cut. That includes Washington's budget.

Fair cuts are fine, I think we all agree with that. I think we even agree that spending needs to be curtailed. I'm not saying that you're wrong, or that I'm right, I think we all need to discuss the best way to do it. In my opinion, I think we need to look at the bottom first.

Please tell me when that "Republican" idea failed.

I'm not talking about small 'r' republican ideals, I believe we all subscribe to those equally. I was referring to the Republican-backed ammendements to the stimulus bill that failed to become a part of the package, some of which I preferred, others that I were indifferent to, and certainly plenty that I would have preferred to go without.

However, it sounds like that housing amendment is being addressed by the new housing bill that Obama wants to push forward.

We can get rid of the banking problem and future crises by not giving them such protection, but ultimately we need to correct the greater problem of our flawed monetary system. Most people know more about their flat screen TV than they do about their bank. Are you really surprised that we are in our current situation?

I think we both agree here, and I really get the feeling that this problem was a long-time coming. My time in discussion of political economy and monetary policy is about "average" for most political science students, but obviously there are those of us who know far more, or don't care to know much at all. All of this implies that we as Americans pull out some books and start reading, or better yet, start holding those in power accountable for what has, is, and will happen.

I don't have the best answers, and I generally choose not to say I do. Although while I may have preferences, I'm willing to work with anyone on how best to fix our current situation, or any future problems to come of it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Mortgage rates being artificially low are part of what got us into this mess. Holding them down now is an unsustainable strategy. The best thing to be done is to let the market correct - which it will be happy to do. People don't like market corrections, but it will be over much more quickly and painlessly if we just suck it up now.

And I agree with this as well, but since that Republican idea failed, we're going without it. We do need to address the banking problem, somehow, but how it will actually end up working... Well, thats not my specialty.

Please tell me when that "Republican" idea failed.

I'm not talking about small 'r' republican ideals, I believe we all subscribe to those equally. I was referring to the Republican-backed ammendements to the stimulus bill that failed to become a part of the package, some of which I preferred, others that I were indifferent to, and certainly plenty that I would have preferred to go without.

I am going to have to assume that what you, YSSMAN, are talking about is not the same thing that Danoff and Omnis are talking about.

Danoff is talking about allowing the housing market to correct on its own. Something which neither party has done. Republican policy was to lower interest rates, which Danoff was saying was what caused the problem to begin with.

I'm not sure what you are talking about not getting into the stimulus bill, because that is obviously not what Danoff or Omnis are supporting as neither of them supported any stimulus bill.

Either I'm stoned on cough medicine or I am confused as to what you are saying failed. And even not knowing what you are talking about: Not being passed in a vote does not equal failed policy. Something has to be tried to fail.

 

[YSSMAN]

I was talking about the Republican-backed amendment to the Stimulus Bill to lower interest rates and extend loan terms to address the housing problem before the housing bill idea was kicked around (it is, as we speak). I was interested in it, and would have liked to have seen more come out of it (as well as other Republican-backed amendments). However, Danoff didn't want intervention, and then I noted that most of the proposals had failed to become part of the bill anyway, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Well, that is depending on what gets into the Housing Bill, or for that matter, what Sec. Geithner wants to do with his own plan. It sounds like the "bad bank" idea is still winning out in some circles, but, we'll have to see what happens.

I think Omnis and I had a misunderstanding on the use of the word Republican vs republican. I don't think any of us here, no matter what our views may be on some things deny republican ideals. But to go against the GOP-Republican stuff, yes, we tend to disagree on that a bit more.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, it looks like Rick Santelli from CNBC and the entire CBOE are ready to protest any move to bailout bad loans or lower interest rates anymore. In fact, they are talking a Chicago Tea Party in July.

But what do these guys know?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

And here's the You Tube link: