Is Obama finished?

[justW353]

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game . Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close

FDR blaming Hoover, how responsible. Just shrug off the responsibility and hope the voters buy it.

Well, it's accurate . Look man you're talking to a left-leaning pro-positive rights Christian Democrat not some right-winger totally in thrall to that wretched God of the ideological Right that is the "cult of neoliberalism" - and its deregulatory and non-regulatory excesses - wherein lies all the causation for the 'Crash of 2008' and the 'Great Recession'

I don't even think when it comes to Western capitalism in terms of socialism vs conservatism because liberalism is its hegemonic ideology. European social democracy is a model of capitalism, but more of a 'New Liberal', rather than a neoliberal, essence

You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

You are no libertarian.  You are a neo-con through and through.

As for the blame for the the Great Depression, I think the blame falls on three people.

Harding and Coolidge were at blame for the crash itself.  Coolidge was a smart guy; he declined reelection because he knew the crash was coming.

As for the depression, it all falls on Hoover.

[Derek]

Seemingly, if job creation in the US continues the current pace through the course of 2010, then more jobs will have been created than during the entire eight years of George W Bush's presidency

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/politicalconnections.php

The rate of unemployment needs to fall, of course, otherwise incomes for many will remain flat and it's vital that the economy stays on track. Any double-dip, of course, and Obama will own it

Mhm I thought everything was going to be perfect with Obama in office. He sure made it sound that way.

I play a low expectations game . Been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR. Nowt that came between comes close

FDR blaming Hoover, how responsible. Just shrug off the responsibility and hope the voters buy it.

Well, it's accurate . Look man you're talking to a left-leaning pro-positive rights Christian Democrat not some right-winger totally in thrall to that wretched God of the ideological Right that is the "cult of neoliberalism" - and its deregulatory and non-regulatory excesses - wherein lies all the causation for the 'Crash of 2008' and the 'Great Recession'

I don't even think when it comes to Western capitalism in terms of socialism vs conservatism because liberalism is its hegemonic ideology. European social democracy is a model of capitalism, but more of a 'New Liberal', rather than a neoliberal, essence

You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

You are no libertarian.  You are a neo-con through and through.

As for the blame for the the Great Depression, I think the blame falls on three people.

Harding and Coolidge were at blame for the crash itself.  Coolidge was a smart guy; he declined reelection because he knew the crash was coming.

As for the depression, it all falls on Hoover.

You weren't taught this in school but Harding got us out of a depression with capitalism. Look up the depression of 1920. Only democrats blame problems on the man.

[King]

You weren't taught this in school but Harding got us out of a depression with capitalism. Look up the depression of 1920. Only democrats blame problems on the man.

Huh? The Roaring Twenties and Harding-Coolidge laissez faire is a mainstay of U.S. History curriculum.  The economic boom created by them is taught in every high school in the United States.

The problem was that it was built off a giant non-capitalistic bubble, much like the housing market in the 2000s.  Harding jacked up tariffs to create false trade surpluses with Europe, a continent that was already severely in debt to the United States do to WWI expenditures.  It lead a lot of money to be made domestically, but once the foreign banks dried up, so did the economy.

It wasn't a free market solution.  It was a government bailout to domestic industries that were struggling to compete with foreign producers.

[Derek]

You weren't taught this in school but Harding got us out of a depression with capitalism. Look up the depression of 1920. Only democrats blame problems on the man.

Huh? The Roaring Twenties and Harding-Coolidge laissez faire is a mainstay of U.S. History curriculum.  The economic boom created by them is taught in every high school in the United States.

The problem was that it was built off a giant non-capitalistic bubble, much like the housing market in the 2000s.  Harding jacked up tariffs to create false trade surpluses with Europe, a continent that was already severely in debt to the United States do to WWI expenditures.  It lead a lot of money to be made domestically, but once the foreign banks dried up, so did the economy.

It wasn't a free market solution.  It was a government bailout to domestic industries that were struggling to compete with foreign producers.

Yes the roaring 20's are taught, but what else is taught is that capitalism fails and FDR's government programs are needed. I'm referring tot he depression of 1920.

[King]

You weren't taught this in school but Harding got us out of a depression with capitalism. Look up the depression of 1920. Only democrats blame problems on the man.

Huh? The Roaring Twenties and Harding-Coolidge laissez faire is a mainstay of U.S. History curriculum.  The economic boom created by them is taught in every high school in the United States.

The problem was that it was built off a giant non-capitalistic bubble, much like the housing market in the 2000s.  Harding jacked up tariffs to create false trade surpluses with Europe, a continent that was already severely in debt to the United States do to WWI expenditures.  It lead a lot of money to be made domestically, but once the foreign banks dried up, so did the economy.

It wasn't a free market solution.  It was a government bailout to domestic industries that were struggling to compete with foreign producers.

Yes the roaring 20's are taught, but what else is taught is that capitalism fails and FDR's government programs are needed. I'm referring tot he depression of 1920.

What's taught is that using capitalism to cheat fails and that's a true statement.  If Harding had really got us out of a depression, there wouldn't have been another much larger one just 9 years later.  He created a bubble, much like the housing bubble created through the low interest rate and subprime mortgage deal in the 2000s.

My history teachers all also mentioned that the New Deal didn't really improve the economy much and we didn't get out of the depression until WWII propped up the defense industry and sent the remaining bunch of unemployed people overseas as soldiers.

[Derek]

WWII is what brought us out of the depression but even that was supply and demand. My teachers were in love with FDR's agencies and had us memorize the letters and what they stood for.

[pbrower2a]

You don't have to convince me on New Liberal. I'm a liberal in the 19th century sense of the word which today would be a conservative libertarian. I'm Christian too and if you're bothered to take the time to read my religion and philosophy posts you'll see that I am far from the religious or radical right.

I've some left-libertarian convictions such as support for co-operatives and credit unions - that kind of thing. As for neoliberalism, the 'Crash of 2008' has rendered that as outdated as revolutionary socialism, the failed ideological God of the Left

What comes next?

I think the crash of 2008 was waiting to happen for over 30 years.

Only if you see it as the result of political tendencies that began about when Ronald Reagan became President. We got a culture of greed  but contempt for the intellect, and a rejection of fiscal and economic caution. That coincides with the transformation of Eisenhower-era conservatism into the "supply-side" economics of the Reagan era. Eisenhower-era conservatives disdained debt; Reagan-era conservatives found debt a powerful tool for keeping people working longer and harder for less -- but in fear of the Boss.

Such is a consequence of events that the generational theory of Neil Howe and William Strauss suggests as a consequence of a generational cycle.

[King]

WWII is what brought us out of the depression but even that was supply and demand. My teachers were in love with FDR's agencies and had us memorize the letters and what they stood for.

Well, while there were not effective getting us out of the depression, they are still important to history.

I'm not disappointed that I know what the Tennessee Valley Authority is and what it still does to this day.

[Democratic Hawk]

WWII is what brought us out of the depression but even that was supply and demand. My teachers were in love with FDR's agencies and had us memorize the letters and what they stood for.

No you were in recovery until FDR moved too prematurely in cutting spending causing a dip from which WWII proved to be the way out. Either way he set into motion the greatest progressive era yet. The Golden Age of Capitalism (1950-1972) was not called that for nothing. For most ordinary people it was the best decades of their lives and certainly, as a whole, was better than anything that came before or since.

The only good period, during the Washington Consensus (1980-2008), was the Clinton presidency. For which I give the Republican Congress no credit, otherwise 'Winny' Bush wouldn't have been so abysmal

The 'Third Way' owns compassionate conservatism. Aye, the bigger the wallet, the more heart Bush had

[Derek]

WWII is what brought us out of the depression but even that was supply and demand. My teachers were in love with FDR's agencies and had us memorize the letters and what they stood for.

No you were in recovery until FDR moved too prematurely in cutting spending causing a dip from which WWII proved to be the way out. Either way he set into motion the greatest progressive era yet. The Golden Age of Capitalism (1950-1972) was not called that for nothing. For most ordinary people it was the best decades of their lives and certainly, as a whole, was better than anything that came before or since.

The only good period, during the Washington Consensus (1980-2008), was the Clinton presidency. For which I give the Republican Congress no credit, otherwise 'Winny' Bush wouldn't have been so abysmal

The 'Third Way' owns compassionate conservatism. Aye, the bigger the wallet, the more heart Bush had

Can you hear me all the way over there on the left? Our economy was AWFUL until 1995 when Newt Gingrich and the GOP took over and by March of 2000 we were already in a recession giving Bush one of the worst handed economies for any new presidents except for Reagan and FDR. You must enjoy Clinton's magic wand that made everything better.

[Dan the Roman]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

[The Duke]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

Very smart post.

[memphis]

WWII is what brought us out of the depression but even that was supply and demand. My teachers were in love with FDR's agencies and had us memorize the letters and what they stood for.

No you were in recovery until FDR moved too prematurely in cutting spending causing a dip from which WWII proved to be the way out. Either way he set into motion the greatest progressive era yet. The Golden Age of Capitalism (1950-1972) was not called that for nothing. For most ordinary people it was the best decades of their lives and certainly, as a whole, was better than anything that came before or since.

The only good period, during the Washington Consensus (1980-2008), was the Clinton presidency. For which I give the Republican Congress no credit, otherwise 'Winny' Bush wouldn't have been so abysmal

The 'Third Way' owns compassionate conservatism. Aye, the bigger the wallet, the more heart Bush had

Can you hear me all the way over there on the left? Our economy was AWFUL until 1995 when Newt Gingrich and the GOP took over and by March of 2000 we were already in a recession giving Bush one of the worst handed economies for any new presidents except for Reagan and FDR. You must enjoy Clinton's magic wand that made everything better.

Wrong. Per wikipedia: "The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession."
Also

[Derek]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

We need to cut government salaries by 25% and use the rest to pay off the deficit. Cut the president's pay to $250,000. Congressmens' salaries down to $100,000. Implement a 20% cut in all programs other than defense and security. Cutting taxes will allow money to be used in the private sector to hire workers and spend rather than going towards taxes which results in even more people working and reduces unemployment.

[Yelnoc]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

We need to cut government salaries by 25% and use the rest to pay off the deficit. Cut the president's pay to $250,000. Congressmens' salaries down to $100,000. Implement a 20% cut in all programs other than defense and security. Cutting taxes will allow money to be used in the private sector to hire workers and spend rather than going towards taxes which results in even more people working and reduces unemployment.

Do you have any idea how marginal Government salaries are related to National Debt?  You might save a few million dollars.  The National Debt is in the trillions!

So you want a 20% cut in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits, etc. while not touching Military Spending, which eats $800 billion or about 1/3 of the US Federal budget?  I don't understand your logic.

Could you clarify your last sentence?  It seems like you said cutting taxes will give employers extra money to higher workers rather than spending it on taxes that reduce unemployment.  That makes no sense.

[Derek]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

We need to cut government salaries by 25% and use the rest to pay off the deficit. Cut the president's pay to $250,000. Congressmens' salaries down to $100,000. Implement a 20% cut in all programs other than defense and security. Cutting taxes will allow money to be used in the private sector to hire workers and spend rather than going towards taxes which results in even more people working and reduces unemployment.

Do you have any idea how marginal Government salaries are related to National Debt?  You might save a few million dollars.  The National Debt is in the trillions!

So you want a 20% cut in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits, etc. while not touching Military Spending, which eats $800 billion or about 1/3 of the US Federal budget?  I don't understand your logic.

Could you clarify your last sentence?  It seems like you said cutting taxes will give employers extra money to higher workers rather than spending it on taxes that reduce unemployment.  That makes no sense.

Yes I never said it would happen over night or that my solution had all the answers but it's better than Obama spending millions on honey bee insurance, eating patterns of a snail, and wool studies. I got my own wool study. I wear it and it keeps me warm.

[Dan the Roman]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

We need to cut government salaries by 25% and use the rest to pay off the deficit. Cut the president's pay to $250,000. Congressmens' salaries down to $100,000. Implement a 20% cut in all programs other than defense and security. Cutting taxes will allow money to be used in the private sector to hire workers and spend rather than going towards taxes which results in even more people working and reduces unemployment.

Do you have any idea how marginal Government salaries are related to National Debt?  You might save a few million dollars.  The National Debt is in the trillions!

So you want a 20% cut in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits, etc. while not touching Military Spending, which eats $800 billion or about 1/3 of the US Federal budget?  I don't understand your logic.

Could you clarify your last sentence?  It seems like you said cutting taxes will give employers extra money to higher workers rather than spending it on taxes that reduce unemployment.  That makes no sense.

Yes I never said it would happen over night or that my solution had all the answers but it's better than Obama spending millions on honey bee insurance, eating patterns of a snail, and wool studies. I got my own wool study. I wear it and it keeps me warm.

The largest component of the Federal budget is Defense, after that it is Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Debt Service Payments. Those combined are over 70% of the Federal Budget. There is quite simply no way to balance the federal budget without substantial defense cuts or revenue increases. This is the same situation as existed under Bush II, and its why I give zero credibility to Conservatives claims to be deficit hawks. You can not be both a superpower and have low taxes. You actually have to pay for stuff and be stingy. The debt does not exist because of entitlements, but because people refused to pay for them, and it was not liberal who made having the cake and eating it too popular - it was supply-side conservatives. I agree that there comes a time when debt is more dangerous than other marginal aspects of the business climate, but in such a situation, the important factor is the expectation you will pay the debt back, not its size. The reason why the dollar has been suffering is because foreigners don't think the political balance in the US will allow taxes to be raised in order pay down the debt,  and will instead opt to print money post-2012.

And government salaries, while a lot larger portion of expenses in Germany in the 1930s(all local school teachers and police were state employees, not people you want to piss off when facing a fascist challenge), salary cutting is never about saving money. Its about making a statement of moral sacrifice that everyone is sharing the pain. And it has been a disaster whenever it has been tried throughout world history, because the types of things unemployed cops tend to get involved with during depressions are not the sorts of things you want them doing.

[pbrower2a]

The thing people who claim about the effectiveness of the New Deal miss is that it was a political solution ot a political problem. 7% unemployment is an economic problem. 25% is a political one. It may be that austerity and free market economics will get you better growth 7 or 8 years down the line, but the unemployed won't wait that long. The Bruning government in Germany in 1930-32 followed Paulite economics to the hilt, doing a unilateral 33% salary cut for state employees and attempting to aggressively cut spending. The result was they all voted for Hitler who promised public works, and they loved him for it.

In 1931, Americans were being cut down in the streets of Washington by the US Army. five years later the President won reelection with 61% of the vote. The New Deal was an unprecedented success on its own terms. People just have no sense of proportion as to what those terms were.

We need to cut government salaries by 25% and use the rest to pay off the deficit. Cut the president's pay to $250,000. Congressmens' salaries down to $100,000. Implement a 20% cut in all programs other than defense and security. Cutting taxes will allow money to be used in the private sector to hire workers and spend rather than going towards taxes which results in even more people working and reduces unemployment.

Much of American business depends upon government activity -- medical practices that rely heavily upon Medicare and Medicaid patients, grocers (even Wal-Mart) who accept SNAP, truckers who use public roads, and of course contractors on public works.

If you are talking about the non-federal public sector, then think again of the consequences of underpaying cops (many of which will drift for all practical purposes to the payrolls of gangsters) and teachers. 

Without question, corruption must be weeded out of government -- but not solely for the purpose of cutting deficits. Government is still the only way in which to do certain things equitably and efficiently -- like the mail,  law enforcement, schools, and highways.

[Derek]

I don't share the view that government is the only way to do certain things efficiently. I'm certainly not happy with schools, the post office, social security being bankrupt, or the way medicare is handled. Privitization I believe does things much more efficiently.

[izixs]

I don't share the view that government is the only way to do certain things efficiently. I'm certainly not happy with schools, the post office, social security being bankrupt, or the way medicare is handled. Privitization I believe does things much more efficiently.

I keep hearing arguments like this, and there's not really any follow through to explain how or why that such is the case. Its disappointing really as I'm one of those odd folks susceptible to logical arguments. Mind taking it from the level of believing and trying out a little proving?

[Beet]

I don't share the view that government is the only way to do certain things efficiently. I'm certainly not happy with schools, the post office, social security being bankrupt, or the way medicare is handled. Privitization I believe does things much more efficiently.

I keep hearing arguments like this, and there's not really any follow through to explain how or why that such is the case. Its disappointing really as I'm one of those odd folks susceptible to logical arguments. Mind taking it from the level of believing and trying out a little proving?

A fundamental misdiagnosis of the situation, izixs. Derek doesn't need to prove anything except for his emotions, which he already knows because he feels them. QED.

[pbrower2a]

I don't share the view that government is the only way to do certain things efficiently. I'm certainly not happy with schools, the post office, social security being bankrupt, or the way medicare is handled. Privitization I believe does things much more efficiently.

The Private Sector can do things better by some standards mostly because it can pick and choose customers. One way in which to choose customers is to price people out.

There is no private alternative to the Armed Forces or to diplomacy. The private solution to criminal justice is a lynch mob -- effective and inexpensive, but grossly unjust. Governments are responsible to people; corporations are responsible to shareholders or sugar-daddy providers of endowments.

Sure, elite private boarding schools are effective -- because the kids aren't handicapped to begin with, because they don't have their minds stunted in crowded slums and rural hovels, and because the boarding schools can eliminate television and video games. Federal Express and  UPS cater to high-value objects and communications; you would never send a greeting card by either, and you would probably never mass-mail your life history to prospective employers by either. If you think that Social Security is inadequate, then remember that you can supplement it with life insurance -- term or whole life -- and with an IRA. Both are low-yield , illiquid, and long-term if they are to offer any safety at all and don't devour your investment with fees.

Fire fighting? The firemen arrive at the scene of the fire not so much to protect a burning house (by which time it is ordinarily too late) but instead to protect the neighboring buildings. It's up to you to put in a sprinkler system.

Full privatization is best for those who have every advantage in the world, but for everyone else it is do without or pay an exorbitant price while pay becomes a sham.

[Derek]

I don't share the view that government is the only way to do certain things efficiently. I'm certainly not happy with schools, the post office, social security being bankrupt, or the way medicare is handled. Privitization I believe does things much more efficiently.

I keep hearing arguments like this, and there's not really any follow through to explain how or why that such is the case. Its disappointing really as I'm one of those odd folks susceptible to logical arguments. Mind taking it from the level of believing and trying out a little proving?

Yes when you look at the public schools that are government run, kids graduate not knowing how to read. The post office is slow, inefficient, and sends mail to the wrong people. Social security and medicare which I'm a fan of are both bankrupt. The DMV takes forever and causes the cost of insurance to go up. The health care industry is completely privatized right now and it is the envy of the world. When you said from believing to prove, were you thinking of Plato's theory on the 4 levels of knowledge; imagining, believing, thinking, knowing? I'm a platonist myself.

[DS0816]

… The health care industry is completely privatized right now and it is the envy of the world. …

…The U.S.'s?

How so?

[Derek]

… The health care industry is completely privatized right now and it is the envy of the world. …

…The U.S.'s?

How so?

Yes just ask the politician from Canada who came here for surgery because the wait in Canada was too long.