Obama Meter

[NIGHTS OF BAGHDAD]

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[TheScotsman]

Ya, what a master of the economy.
His treasury sec has a press conference, and the market goes from +50 to -300 in 10 minutes. Sweet plan he must have had!

He signs the porkulus package, and the market goes on a dumping spree. Gold spikes as investors head for safe ground.

Breaking that 7600 support level today is bad news in a big way. I would bet we see 7K before we see 9. Only thing that will be worse is seeing gold break 1K, that is going to have a bad psych impact on allot of investors.

Not to mention setting a record for breaking his pledges.
http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/02/...2b553271531.txt
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/letters/...0,4427867.story
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=88989



Change? <---<<Bollocks!
Hope? <----<<Fading fast

[Will_Evo]

Couldn't agree more.

How about this 75 billion stimulus for mortgage relief...that sounds like a big number to us, but its nothing compared to the trillions that are going to be lost in coming years. He says it will stop foreclosures...but what happens to the people keeping up on payments on an 800,000 dollar home worth 200,000? Eventually the ones that weren't helped are going to be facing foreclosure. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but dumping money into a weak economy isn't going to fix anything, and it makes me nervous to see what it will eventually come to. This kind of thing sounds like a perfect platform for a government ran residential market, especially if this stimulus does the same as the first, and fails miserably.

I feel like we have two options, 1. Government funded, ran and regulated residential program along with smaller programs for things such as basic loans.(All of which could be temporary or long term) or 2. Go into depression/deeper recession and allow the free market to fix it self and once on the rise again( likely to take more than 3 years), change policies to prevent it again. Just what I see. Cause dumping money all over the place is not restoring anyones confidence in the market.

-Evo

[newjacksm]

I'm not gonna lie. I'm shit scared what gonna happen in a year or two.

[TheScotsman]

When the leader of Russia tells us we are headed down a bad road to socialism, you really do have to start worrying.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/0...chew_socia.html

Or when China tells us our messiah's plan will screw up our economy worse...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/...nt_10839914.htm


But at least the great hope of the "free" world is keeping us safe from those rampaging Canadians!!
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/02/15/minnesot...w-border-patrol
Or, are they trying to make sure we all don't make a run for Canada?

Not sure what to make of http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-645. Sect 2:B4 makes one wonder just what homeland security wants a concentration camp for.

Hell, don't blame me... I didn't vote for the morons.

[tinyj316]

I'm a dipshit. That's all

[Hippo_Master]

Do people seriously think Sarah Palin and John McCain should have been elected, still?

[tinyj316]

Do people seriously think Sarah Palin and John McCain should have been elected, still?

I think they would have done a hell of a lot worse than Obama...

What people fail to realize is that this isn't going to be an overnight "oh shit, everything's all better now!" deal... It will get worse before it gets better. We have no idea how deeply rooted the economic hardships the last regime caused will be. I would venture a guess that we won't see a turn around until Q2-10... 09 is going to be a rocky year...

[Bulldog_916]

Do people seriously think Sarah Palin and John McCain should have been elected, still?

I think they would have done a hell of a lot worse than Obama...

What people fail to realize is that this isn't going to be an overnight "oh shit, everything's all better now!" deal... It will get worse before it gets better. We have no idea how deeply rooted the economic hardships the last regime caused will be. I would venture a guess that we won't see a turn around until Q2-10... 09 is going to be a rocky year...

I agree with this and agree with the fact that there is no real way to spur the same kind of rampant splurging that I'm sure we all were guilty of at points before 2007. We gorged ourselves on the equity in our homes. Then the market dropped out. It's going to take at least 2 years to get back to real upward momentum. We probably wont see 14000 again on the Dow until 3 to 4 years from now, depending on how new technology and bio/pharma come along.

That said, I dont think anyone could do better with the congress that we have. It's tough to come to an agreement when your representation ratio in a state like California is over 2 million to 1. Trying to represent the interests of 2 million different people is impossible. McCain/Palin certainly couldnt have done it. Tax cuts simply dont work as a stimulus for spending money in the middle class. They may work to help create a few jobs in big companies but otherwise it just sits on the sidelines as cash until it's needed.

In order to stabilize the market, you have to take care of the banks and take care of housing, write down all the losses on homes, create a bad asset bank, and finally get homes back to their pre-2005 levels price wise. Americans forget their history as fast as it happens, so the minute we start to come back, this will have been a distant memory. Something else will become a bubble, and in 10-15 years, we'll be back here again.

[Johnny_D]

Come on chaps.

It can't get better. It has to change. The whole economic system has to change at a fundamental level.

Can we (DO WE?) Return, or turn the clocks back, to 3 years ago of spend spend spend spend spend. It's not bloody sustainable.

In fact i'd say communism(on paper) is more effective than what we are going to face.

JD

[judgeposer]

Do people seriously think Sarah Palin and John McCain should have been elected, still?

I think they would have done a hell of a lot worse than Obama...

What people fail to realize is that this isn't going to be an overnight "oh shit, everything's all better now!" deal... It will get worse before it gets better. We have no idea how deeply rooted the economic hardships the last regime caused will be. I would venture a guess that we won't see a turn around until Q2-10... 09 is going to be a rocky year...

But I wonder when we can stop using the excuse that it will get worse before it gets better? I do realize the potential accuracy of that statement, but that doesn't leave me anywhere. I'm not suggesting that our representatives, including our new president, give us a timeline of their expectations, but something more substantive will have to enter the public debate soon. I don't see this excuse having any longevity, to put it another way.

So, when the President said in his Feb. 9th press conference that "initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs," I don't think he supplied us with a metric worth a damn. How can we measure "saved" jobs? While, as some smarter have said, this sort of rhetoric is political genius, it lacks explanatory power.

[...]
That said, I dont think anyone could do better with the congress that we have. It's tough to come to an agreement when your representation ratio in a state like California is over 2 million to 1. Trying to represent the interests of 2 million different people is impossible. McCain/Palin certainly couldnt have done it. Tax cuts simply dont work as a stimulus for spending money in the middle class. They may work to help create a few jobs in big companies but otherwise it just sits on the sidelines as cash until it's needed.

In order to stabilize the market, you have to take care of the banks and take care of housing, write down all the losses on homes, create a bad asset bank, and finally get homes back to their pre-2005 levels price wise. Americans forget their history as fast as it happens, so the minute we start to come back, this will have been a distant memory. Something else will become a bubble, and in 10-15 years, we'll be back here again.

The last part about taking care of banks, I can agree with. About tax cuts, however, that they do not spur growth or have a stimulative effect, isn't reflected in the latest research, which says that government spending produces a GDP multiplier of about 1.4, whereas tax cuts have historically produced a GDP multiplier of 3.0. That means for each dollar the government spends, the GDP experiences a gain of 1.4 (dollars), and so forth with a dollar of cut taxes producing a GDP bump of 3.0 (dollars).

Some combination of the two, as Obama's plan prescribes, might be the cure to what ails us. I am, however, a skeptic when it comes to government spending, so I can't say I have much hope for what his stimulus proposal will produce - but I have hope!

[tinyj316]

Perhaps someone can let Al Gore out of his cage so he can create a new internet... the tech boom saved us from the last recession...

/joke

I think that in order to see the quickest turnaround possible, we need to rebuild/modernize our infrastructure (providing living wage jobs across the board), and invest in solar/wind/wave energy sources (as much as big oil would hate to see us gain energy independence).

[TheScotsman]

Perhaps someone can let Al Gore out of his cage so he can create a new internet... the tech boom saved us from the last recession...

/joke

I think that in order to see the quickest turnaround possible, we need to rebuild/modernize our infrastructure (providing living wage jobs across the board), and invest in solar/wind/wave energy sources (as much as big oil would hate to see us gain energy independence).

And just how do we pay for it?
Until someone can answer that simple question without hocus-pocus-economics that simply don't balance, they are just talking out their arse. It's easy to put a big band-aid over something, but without a band-aid we all bleed to death.

Keeping in mind, as of today the US Gov't financial obligation is $65,000,000,000,000.00 if we spent zero more, on zero people/projects. That is more than the entire world's GDP. Just to fill obligations made right now! That stack of dollar bills would go from washington DC to the moon and back... eight times. They are projecting a deficit "real" of $9,200,000,000,000.00 this year alone. Spending yourself out of debt is a unique concept. Someone needs to explain in depth just how that is supposed to work!

How much is a trillion? Hmmmm let's see... If you started a business today, and lost a dollar a second it would be the year 34,000A.D. before you lost the first trillion. It would be well after the year 2million A.D. before you caught up with the Obama Admin.

Expecting energy independance at this point is a bit like wondering what to have for dinner when someone just threw you in the middle of the ocean with an anchor tied to your ankle.


Just out of curiosity, since every liberal I know says trickle-down doesn't work... why is the basic democrat policy in this porkulus to throw money into the top eschelon of the problem, and hope it makes it down to the common man? Seems like hypocritical bullshit to me. What the hell, maybe it's like Dems and taxes! They can't seem to want any tax cuts for biz... yet they ALL seem to have a problem paying their own taxes without trying to defraud the IRS. People think they are going to help anything? ok. if you say so. In all their jubilee over the messiah, what people forget is that he DIDN'T win by a landslide, but rather a small margin.

[Will_Evo]

Perhaps someone can let Al Gore out of his cage so he can create a new internet... the tech boom saved us from the last recession...

/joke

I think that in order to see the quickest turnaround possible, we need to rebuild/modernize our infrastructure (providing living wage jobs across the board), and invest in solar/wind/wave energy sources (as much as big oil would hate to see us gain energy independence).

And just how do we pay for it?
Until someone can answer that simple question without hocus-pocus-economics that simply don't balance, they are just talking out their arse. It's easy to put a big band-aid over something, but without a band-aid we all bleed to death.

Keeping in mind, as of today the US Gov't financial obligation is $65,000,000,000,000.00 if we spent zero more, on zero people/projects. That is more than the entire world's GDP. Just to fill obligations made right now! That stack of dollar bills would go from washington DC to the moon and back... eight times. They are projecting a deficit "real" of $9,200,000,000,000.00 this year alone. Spending yourself out of debt is a unique concept. Someone needs to explain in depth just how that is supposed to work!

How much is a trillion? Hmmmm let's see... If you started a business today, and lost a dollar a second it would be the year 34,000A.D. before you lost the first trillion. It would be well after the year 2million A.D. before you caught up with the Obama Admin.

Expecting energy independance at this point is a bit like wondering what to have for dinner when someone just threw you in the middle of the ocean with an anchor tied to your ankle.


Just out of curiosity, since every liberal I know says trickle-down doesn't work... why is the basic democrat policy in this porkulus to throw money into the top eschelon of the problem, and hope it makes it down to the common man? Seems like hypocritical bullshit to me. What the hell, maybe it's like Dems and taxes! They can't seem to want any tax cuts for biz... yet they ALL seem to have a problem paying their own taxes without trying to defraud the IRS. People think they are going to help anything? ok. if you say so. In all their jubilee over the messiah, what people forget is that he DIDN'T win by a landslide, but rather a small margin.

I agree completely. Like I said before, throwing money at the problems we are facing will not fix a thing, nor will it re-establish any confidence in the market. All you are going to get is a few million people who think they are saved, after which the next million start foreclosures, and then, because the first batch were so unwise, they will undoubtedly fall right back into the same hole. The problem of the economy is much deeper and much more complex than a few billion dollars laid on top of it all. "No matter how much lotion you put on, eventually you will be burned. " With that said what really is the best way to attack this thing, at what angle can we create jobs, not spend more money AND compliment those who are still holding a job? It is simply impossible, How can you make jobs without spending money, how can you give people with jobs financial help while their neighbor loses their job and home, How can you spend money without cutting jobs somewhere? Its a relentless game of rock paper scissors. I know I don't have the answer to be honest at this point I don't think there is an answer except let it play out. Check this out. When the last recession happened, the US population was 106,021,537 . Now in very small numbers, if you gave every single person in the country 5 bucks to help, your total spent would be $530,107,605. Now look at the population today 303,146,284. Now factor in the inflation of the US dollar every year since. (its about 2000%). That means that today, in order to match that in the 20's would be 100$ each. That is $30,314,628,400! And that is saying people could solve all their problems with 100 bucks and that every person as counted in. I know not everyone needs help, so you take them out of the picture but then look at the real money people need and youve got a pretty evened out scale. The kind of money actually needed does not even exist. Our popluation is another culprit to the problem...to many people need help and we lack the means to do so. Its a bad situation we are in. I hope someone figures it out.

-Evo
<h2 class="r">[b]
[/b]</h2>

[TheScotsman]

The big gorilla in the ballroom is future commercial real estate default, and we see jack to help that mess.
If we think home foreclosures are a disaster, just wait until all those big-box stores, and malls start defaulting faster, and end up back in the bank's possession. Guess how much of the spendulus-bill is aimed at deflecting that bullet? Wait... I got it... NONE!

By the way at 13:00 today gold spot broke 1K. The gov't can spend all the fake-money they want to print, but if the real money is all running for metals, there is no hope for the economy. Any bets on $1500? I would say by Aug if the gov't doesn't pull out of the spending BS.

Great leadership we have. I really wonder what he will do when (not if) Mexico fails... it's coming fast.

[Zombone]

Nothing anything these politicians will do will save the U.S. from the collapse of unregulated corrupt capitalism as it's main form of government.
We will collapse but will rise again as a new better nation for it.
But for that to happen we will suffer a lot.

[Bulldog_916]

I dont think Obama alone will be able to solve this problem. He's trying everything he can think of but it isnt having a stabilizing effect on the economy. It's like peeling an onion, just when you get through one bad layer, you find another that's twice as bad. Where do we go from here? I say we go down to 6500 on the Dow, 1200 on the Nasdaq, and 700 on the S&P before we see a real bottom. As people are losing jobs, their spending is decreasing significantly, causing more layoffs, causing less spending still. You have to break that cycle and the only way to do that is by creating jobs, even stupid useless ones. It will temporarily give private enterprise a reason to hire more people and with any luck, get people buying again. But we should never hope to see the amount of frivolous spending that we saw in 2007 and before. We just cant sustain it.

[mitchard]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

[Zombone]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

[judgeposer]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

[Bulldog_916]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

If we didnt have those 2 wars on our tab, doesnt it stand to reason that we might have more resources to tackle this mess? I think it does.

[judgeposer]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

If we didnt have those 2 wars on our tab, doesnt it stand to reason that we might have more resources to tackle this mess? I think it does.

I agree that not having to pay for two ongoing wars would leave us with more resources, but that's not, I don't think, what the poster I responded to meant. He posited, instead, that Bush's wartime economy (whatever that is) or by extension, his execution to two simultaneous wars, placed us in this financial crisis. I don't think the evidence shows this, especially since this crisis, is, as I've said, at base a financial one, having to do with out financial infrastructure. The cause of our financial crisis is not a lack of resources, which we might've expended on wars, though our spending on those wars will, of course, condition how we might have to deal with the crisis.

[Bulldog_916]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

If we didnt have those 2 wars on our tab, doesnt it stand to reason that we might have more resources to tackle this mess? I think it does.

I agree that not having to pay for two ongoing wars would leave us with more resources, but that's not, I don't think, what the poster I responded to meant. He posited, instead, that Bush's wartime economy (whatever that is) or by extension, his execution to two simultaneous wars, placed us in this financial crisis. I don't think the evidence shows this, especially since this crisis, is, as I've said, at base a financial one, having to do with out financial infrastructure. The cause of our financial crisis is not a lack of resources, which we might've expended on wars, though our spending on those wars will, of course, condition how we might have to deal with the crisis.

Historically, wars havent helped the US economy during the course of the war. World War 2 saw a huge explosion of economic activity during the time women moved into the work place. This was after a dust bowl period of the depression. Not really a rise in economic activity as much as a return to the old times. Maybe manufacturing saw a rise mainly because of the influx of people who could afford manufactured goods such as cars and new appliances. The economy saw a contraction after Vietnam then a recovery. Then remained steadily, if slowly, ticking along till the 90s brought the dot com boom. Then a bust in 2001. Then another recovery to a real estate boom. Now it's another bust. We just have to be patient and not count on big booms to improve our economy. They always turn bust eventually.

[f22a4bandit]

It's just another cycle in the economy. We were doing really well three years ago, and then the news came in about BAD LENDING. Why would you approve a $400,000 loan to somebody when the gross income of their family is $55,000? It's just idiotic to do something so blatantly impossible, but it indeed was done.

As for going green, I think it's great, as long as you can solve a few issues. Sure it will create new jobs, but what happens to those employed by oil companies who are suddenly out of a job because of the decrease in demand for petroleum based products? Where is this money going to come from in the first place? It surely isn't going to come from the treasury, unless they are purely out of their minds and WANT to create another post WWI Germany economy (1 million deutchmarks for a loaf of bread anyone?). If we are going to come up with any green jobs, someone is going to have to do something in their own garage to have the next big breakthrough. It will be like the PC all over again. Entrepreneurship may be the answer to this economic downturn...again.

[Zombone]

Get ready for the war-time economy.

Bush tried that already and it got us into this mess.
As tired as I am of the whole "green" thing I really believe that it will be our way out.
Millions of good paying jobs and lower energy prices = a lot more spending on stuff.

While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, even with its supposed uselessness, did cause our government (under President Bush) to spend wildly, government spending didn't get us into this "mess," a combination of a housing bubble, subprime lending, and consequent trading of bad debt in the form of securities is to blame. Even still, I am sure some would blame our current recession on other considerations/causes, it is, at base, a financial crisis, having to do with finance, not poor government investments/spending.

The trigger to the economic collapse is exactly what you stated, but, just imagine if we still had all those spent Iraqi billions right now, this bailout would have been a little better to swallow for the country, and the stimulus less than the amount of money we've spent rebuilding a foreign country that we just finished destroying.