Obama Meter

[Rani]

Guys...... I am not speaking down to anyone when I say this.... BUT.... The age range of this group is such that most of you have never been through this before. I'm old enough that I have. It's a bit deeper than the past TWO (that's right old enough to have done this twice already) I've gone through because this time it hit the banking world as well, but then can anybody really argue the banks weren't over extended? Look at Washington Mutual trying to take over the country in commercial banking. Conservative banks like good old Bank of America (who I personally hate) are not having nearly the problems the others are. And million dollar salaries at automakers are what killed their industry. Not to mention I'm in construction and God know we've been the hardest hit, but once again.... I sat in marketing meetings in my last company and listened to the multi-millionaire owner moan about only have a 40% profit margin because of the bad economy. 40%! When less than half that in any other industry is the norm.

I'm not saying it's not bad but almost all of it can be laid at our own feet. Can anyone really say they didn't expect their mortgage to triple when at the signing of the papers it was all there in front of them? The percentages were there in black and white - all it took was a calculator. Rampant consumerism created this mess and everyone scaling back with the influx of additional money will correct the problem. Just not overnight. And there are indicators already that the turn around has started. When construction went belly up this time, the first step design was completely dead. Design house are now busy as hell designed the construction for this time next years. The answer is the same in the future for everyone. Do not live above your means. Assume you will have a personal financial crises at any time though lay-off, etc., and plan for it. There are two answers to having a more comfortable lifestyle. Kill yourself to earn more money to have more, or be comfortable with wanting less. People not willing to be comfortable with less is why this happened. Minimalists are still doing pretty good out there. I'm on unemployment (that construction thing) and I'm making it. I'm having to budget hard and I'm not splurging, but I'm hanging in there which tells me how much I was personally wasting before. Lesson learned.

As far as President Obama is concerned..... I don't know how his skills are, but I do know this: He's a long way ahead of what came before him because he a) is willing to listen and learn, is willing to admit it when he makes a mistake and learn from it and finally c) is a humble and compassionate human being. All of which is what I want to see in a president. I think several years from now you're all going to be surprised to look back and see what a compassionate, humble, open minded president can accomplish.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

What about that campaign promise about getting the world to respect the USA?

I must say, between the presses treatment (or rather lack of any acknowledgment) of Gordon Brown, and those fine choices of airport-giftshop pieces of junk he gave to the Browns... it's well, appalling.

I wonder if those tacky-ass DVDs are even region encoded for the UK?!



Obama... proving he's an amateur every waking moment. bahahaha

Such a fine and smart comment, oh pardon my sarcasm....

An amateur President? Yes, well that's what you would call EVERY first term President because guess what? That's why it's their first term - because they're new at it. Obama is already better than George W and Bush Senior at being President and he hasn't even been in office for 100 days....

Anyway, who really cares about Gordon Brown - one of the most boring speakers ever and well not even taken that seriously back home in the UK.

Yes, amateur hour.

So who are the “brains” of the Ivy League guiding our country in this perilous time, the top echelon who are pretending to have a clue about “fixing” the economy through the current recession-cum-depression?

• President Barack Obama: Columbia U; Harvard Law School. Business experience: Zero.
• Sec. of State Hillary Clinton: Yale; Yale Law School. Business experience: selling Brownie and Girl Scout cookies in grade school.
• Sec. of the Treasury (and tax cheat) Timothy Geithner: Dartmouth; (Master’s from John Hopkins). Business experience: Zero.
• Attorney General at Dept. of Justice Eric Holder: Columbia; Columbia Law School. Business experience: Zero.
• Sec. of Commerce Gary Locke: Yale; (Boston U. Law School). Business experience: part-time jobs through college.
• Sec. of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan: Harvard; Master’s from Harvard. Business experience: Zero.

When you have a zero-experience it's amateur hour.

[judgeposer]

Yes, amateur hour.

So who are the "brains" of the Ivy League guiding our country in this perilous time, the top echelon who are pretending to have a clue about "fixing" the economy through the current recession-cum-depression?

• President Barack Obama: Columbia U; Harvard Law School. Business experience: Zero.
• Sec. of State Hillary Clinton: Yale; Yale Law School. Business experience: selling Brownie and Girl Scout cookies in grade school.
• Sec. of the Treasury (and tax cheat) Timothy Geithner: Dartmouth; (Master's from John Hopkins). Business experience: Zero.
• Attorney General at Dept. of Justice Eric Holder: Columbia; Columbia Law School. Business experience: Zero.
• Sec. of Commerce Gary Locke: Yale; (Boston U. Law School). Business experience: part-time jobs through college.
• Sec. of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan: Harvard; Master's from Harvard. Business experience: Zero.

When you have a zero-experience it's amateur hour.

Why is experience fixed to "business experience." While I would imagine it might have something to do with our present financial crisis, why should we believe that "business experience" has anything to do with the knowledge required to repair the financial market? You might well be onto something, I just think for the benefit of good conversation, you should connect those dots. You also listed the AG, the SoS, SofHUD, despite those not typically being areas where any sort of business knowledge has ever been required of government officials, much less shown to be an asset.

Also, how is your argument, that these officials don't have the requisite experience, something different from an ad hominem attack? Shouldn't we let their policies speak, judge them on the merits, without resorting to some sort of genetic fallacy. What sense is it to point out experience deficits if those same politicians produce policies that work? I know that we don't have any evidence yet of these initial economic policies working, admittedly, but that doesn't then necessarily bring within the ambit of good argumentation these officials' lack of business experience. I'm sure that we each have among our favorite politicians those who despite any real business experience produced policies that provided for economic growth, recovery, and stability, (e.g. Reagan and Clinton, to choose from two quite different political affiliations).

[Sonthert]

I think your point, Scotsman, is a good one, but you have it backwards. The recession is by and large, removing external international influences, caused by the lack of responsibility or short-shortsightedness of members of the business community in the U.S.. Individually, these choices in a microeconomic sense don't pose a threat to the macroeconomy. When enough of these companies engage in the same choices or policies, they pose a problem to the macroeconomy. So, to a point, whats required is people that can think outside the microeconomic level, presumably people that zero experience in business. If they could think outside the microeconomic level most of the macro-problems wouldn't exist, because these companies could have foreseen the potential faults of their choices and enacted choices or policies that didn't lead to a recession. Are you telling me you want the management of companies like AIG and GM to get into the President's Cabinet? Lets put it this way. If I was running GM, they might not have been making as much money in the long run, but they might have seen their business jump over 200% in 2008, like me. Do you really want business guys like that with their "finger on the button"? They've failed to this point to correct the economy, putting the same people with "business experience" in charge of correcting it seems like putting gasoline on a fire.

Therefore, I think people without business experience are perfect for this situation.

[judgeposer]

I don't know if any of you guys follow Greg Mankiw's blog, but he recently featured this, 3.26.09:

History Repeating Itself

2009:

President Obama's budget chief hinted Wednesday that the president's signature campaign issue -- a middle-class tax cut -- will not likely survive a budget battle with Democrats on Capitol Hill. On a conference call with reporters in advance of the president's trip to the Hill to speak before the Senate Democratic caucus, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag indicated that, while 98 percent of the budget mark-ups in the House and Senate are on par with the administration's budget blueprint, some campaign trail promises, like middle-class tax cuts, may get left on the cutting room floor.

1993:

Seeking to explain why he is backtracking on a campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, President-elect Bill Clinton said Thursday that the plan was never a major theme in his race for the White House. Mr. Clinton, speaking at a news conference a day after saying he would have to "revisit" his tax-cut plan, said Americans voted for him because of the "big things" he wanted to do.The middle-class tax cut, he said, was not among them....

Mr. Clinton spoke throughout the campaign of the need to redress declining middle-class incomes during the 1980s. He proposed a tax cut for the middle class nearly a year ago, in New Hampshire, and repeated the pledge frequently.

link: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/03/his...ing-itself.html I am behind in the news, so, some of you might've already heard/read this.

[TheScotsman]

I think your point, Scotsman, is a good one, but you have it backwards. The recession is by and large, removing external international influences, caused by the lack of responsibility or short-shortsightedness of members of the business community in the U.S.. Individually, these choices in a microeconomic sense don't pose a threat to the macroeconomy. When enough of these companies engage in the same choices or policies, they pose a problem to the macroeconomy. So, to a point, whats required is people that can think outside the microeconomic level, presumably people that zero experience in business. If they could think outside the microeconomic level most of the macro-problems wouldn't exist, because these companies could have foreseen the potential faults of their choices and enacted choices or policies that didn't lead to a recession. Are you telling me you want the management of companies like AIG and GM to get into the President's Cabinet? Lets put it this way. If I was running GM, they might not have been making as much money in the long run, but they might have seen their business jump over 200% in 2008, like me. Do you really want business guys like that with their "finger on the button"? They've failed to this point to correct the economy, putting the same people with "business experience" in charge of correcting it seems like putting gasoline on a fire.

Therefore, I think people without business experience are perfect for this situation.

No one would want a CEO of a failure in charge, yet with no experience whatsoever they are the other extreme of what we don't need. We have a treasury sec that claims he couldn't understand turbotax (5 years in a row). Now who in their right mind would think someone with so little real life experience, that he can't understand turbotax is fit to run the Treasury/IRS? The only thing worse than a collection of CEO's would be a collection of lawyers who have survived, no thrived, by suckling the tit of society.

When any operation gets so large the person ultimately in charge has no regular hands-on oversight of the daily operation, his appointed managers, be they a cabinet, or board, becomes of critical importance. Just the fact that we can't seem to even fill the seats in the treasury brings allot of doubt on the choices being made. After all, the whole idea of tax the people, give the money to the banks so they can loan it to the people seems asinine... and it's all we are hearing from these inexperienced people. Remind me again, how many of his appointees have had to step down because of tax fraud/cheat problems? The answers, and goals we see coming from Washington are nothing more than trying to reinflate a bubble that should have not existed in the first place.

The problem with AIG is that we could pass all the regs we want, limit everything, appoint a bureaucrat to sit in the office with every AIG employee, and make them all wear shock collars, but the problem would have still occured. The CDS that caused the collapse were sold out of the London office, and not regulated by US law. It makes our President's cabinet's calls for more regulation here not only a mute point, but a demonstration of lack of understanding of the problem. Maybe with some experience that wouldn't be happening?

If your house caught on fire would you call someone with experience with a fire, or a lawyer that lived on the gov't dole? Or more to the point, one of the best people to review your alarm/security system and proceedures is a reformed burgular.

[Rani]

Well, something seems to be making progress. Wall Street (the putzs that they are) have shown advances for now three weeks in a row for the first time in quite a while. Economists are saying they're seeing indicators that businesses will be hiring and expanding before the end of the year. Design houses for construction are busy as hell designing systems for building projects to start end of this year or first of next. I'm not an economist, but it seems from my observations recession'/depression occur when money stops moving around and the money is starting to move again. I believe it's logical that we wait a little while before deciding his plan has no merit.

As far as experience is concerned..... Having hired and supervised people before, when given the choice between the jaded experienced worker who just wants to keep doing the job in the same old way, and the wet behind the ears but enthusiastic and determined to do the job right new kid on the block, I'm going to take wet behind the ears every time. Because at least they're willing to learn something and explore all the options insane though some of them might seem.

'Rani

[tinyj316]

The partisanship in this thread is dizzying... and annoying.

the republicans have had 8 years to run the economy into the ground with wasteful spending to the tune of 6 to 10 trillion dollars... and you're bitching about 2 billion in earmarks of a 410 billion omnibus spending bill (budget)? That's just asinine... That's less than 1 percent of the entire budget. I think Jon Stewart said it best: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-dail...jects/975903898

[judgeposer]

The partisanship in this thread is dizzying... and annoying.

the republicans have had 8 years to run the economy into the ground with wasteful spending to the tune of 6 to 10 trillion dollars... and you're bitching about 2 billion in earmarks of a 410 billion omnibus spending bill (budget)? That's just asinine... That's less than 1 percent of the entire budget. I think Jon Stewart said it best: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-dail...jects/975903898

Tiny, I don't know that we take as a serious argument that Congress's spending - albeit during a Republican presidency and a Republican-controlled Congress - caused our ruined economy. I also don't think we can have a serious debate about earmark spending, at least to the extent that it will produce any serious economic havoc, so I agree with you there.

Too, burning someone's candle out doesn't make yours burn any brighter. I know that there's something to be said for ideological consistency, and believing in principles, not men, but criticism doesn't lose weight because it comes from someone's ideological opponent.

I don't think partisanship is a bad thing either - though, perhaps only when it becomes a tool to disarm someone else from leveling otherwise reasonable criticism. To the extent any of us do it, we're wrong. Edited March 28, 2009 by judgeposer

[moses_moselle]

Here are my two cents.

Bush - crap

Obama - crap

The difference = Obama was honest with his policies. You KNEW what you were getting. America wanted semi-socialism, America gets semi-socialism. Obama didnt lie about what he was going to do, he was very honest.

Bush, however, campaigned on NO Nation Building and smaller government.

....

I think we ALL know what went wrong there.

[Tyler]

The problem is the Democratic majority congress. And Biden. McCain/Palin would have done much better than Obama ever could because of his VP. If Obama had a better VP he could do more than just piss off congress.

[Rani]

The problem is the Democratic majority congress. And Biden. McCain/Palin would have done much better than Obama ever could because of his VP. If Obama had a better VP he could do more than just piss off congress.

Whoa......! I simply can't leave with one unanswered...... I met McCain several years ago when he was taking his first shot at the Republican nomination and coming around to big business shaking hands. I wasn't impressed than and I'm still not impressed. I openly admit I preferred Obama, however that preference wasn't the final reason I voted for him. When we elect a President and Vice-President we do so knowing there is the potential that the VP will end up in the President's slot. (Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, etc.) So the final question to myself was, if worse came to worse who would I rather see step into that spot. Biden at least has a history of government and foreign policy. Palin? If you can honestly visualize Palin in the Oval Office as a good thing, well, then I'm sorry but I personally think you've got a very bad vision plan.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

And yet another Obama appointee comes up as a tax cheat that only started paying-up once they were appointed.


With Apr 15 coming, it emphasizes the fact the admin is full of people that preach that we need to pay more taxes, and that paying taxes is a patriotic duty... yet won't pay their own taxes.


Well, that is a bit off the Obamameter topic... so I will toss in the not-so-publicized part of the obamameter... http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

[Bulldog_916]

And yet another Obama appointee comes up as a tax cheat that only started paying-up once they were appointed.


With Apr 15 coming, it emphasizes the fact the admin is full of people that preach that we need to pay more taxes, and that paying taxes is a patriotic duty... yet won't pay their own taxes.


Well, that is a bit off the Obamameter topic... so I will toss in the not-so-publicized part of the obamameter... http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

I understand that you're pissed that Geithner and others didnt pay their taxes. The majority of Obama's cabinet HAVE paid their taxes. There are normal everyday 9-5'ers like you and me that have skipped on their taxes too. I know a couple. It isnt hypocritical that you dont ask every aspect of a politician's financial life. No one expects that politicians have spotless finances. If they did, they wouldnt be politicians. The point is that Geithner paid his dues, he paid them with interest. Would you seriously continue to rag on a reformed criminal who did his time and is committed to continuing with his life without that burden over his head? I dont think you would (at least, not to his face). He's trying to fix our economy by making good decisions and so far it seems to be working. Granted, it's going to be slow, as all things are in policy. It took us a year and a half to reach the bottom, it's going to take longer to get back. Be patient, maybe you might be surprised as to what actually happens.

[judgeposer]

And yet another Obama appointee comes up as a tax cheat that only started paying-up once they were appointed.


With Apr 15 coming, it emphasizes the fact the admin is full of people that preach that we need to pay more taxes, and that paying taxes is a patriotic duty... yet won't pay their own taxes.


Well, that is a bit off the Obamameter topic... so I will toss in the not-so-publicized part of the obamameter... http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

I understand that you're pissed that Geithner and others didnt pay their taxes. The majority of Obama's cabinet HAVE paid their taxes. There are normal everyday 9-5'ers like you and me that have skipped on their taxes too. I know a couple. It isnt hypocritical that you dont ask every aspect of a politician's financial life. No one expects that politicians have spotless finances. If they did, they wouldnt be politicians. The point is that Geithner paid his dues, he paid them with interest. Would you seriously continue to rag on a reformed criminal who did his time and is committed to continuing with his life without that burden over his head? I dont think you would (at least, not to his face). He's trying to fix our economy by making good decisions and so far it seems to be working. Granted, it's going to be slow, as all things are in policy. It took us a year and a half to reach the bottom, it's going to take longer to get back. Be patient, maybe you might be surprised as to what actually happens.

I, for one, will wait to see how these policies unfold, and whether they will succeed in helping recoup our economy.

That said, the public's fixation about these Cabinet members' tax/financial history is altogether reasonable, I think, because what distinguishes them from nearly everyone else is that they now -and for those who didn't get confirmed- occupy positions of public trust. I don't think we're fixating on these issues without consideration of whether some among us have irreproachable tax or financial histories. We simply expect more from those who occupy or seek to occupy positions of public trust.

Your analogy using the example of a former convict, even one who we have to assume has paid his debt to society and may have even expressed remorse for his crime, it seems to me, doesn't apply because it does not account for the fact that society, which includes the legal system, doesn't treat all reformed convicts alike or, in most cases, allow them to freely re-incorporate themselves among us. Take for instance someone convicted of a crime that involves lying or deceit. That person's crime can be used to impeach his future testimony. In nearly all police departments, such crimes will disqualify an applicant. For another example, consider the permanent disenfranchisement in some jurisdictions of felons. These are just three random, but applicable examples, each of which we can debate its merits, but they nonetheless distinguish your analogy.

Even still, I don't mean to say that those tax evaders who've now successfully joined the Obama Cabinet shouldn't be trusted. I'm saying something more simple and, I hope, less controversial: we should make them demonstrate their worthiness of the positions they seek to or already occupy, which includes facing our criticism (or the media's) of their tax evasion. At some point, however, and probably within the nearer future, this issue will become moot - as in irrelevant. For the time being, however, having just won an election in which Obama campaigned on changing the way government runs, promising a more transparent, accountable, and honest government, I don't think that time has yet come.

[ilikemyusername]

mmmmmmmmm braaaaains..........

[SuburbanSmoker]

. For the time being, however, having just won an election in which Obama campaigned on changing the way government runs, promising a more transparent, accountable, and honest government, I don't think that time has yet come.

I think your absolutely correct. I dont see much change, much "yes we can" through the actions as a government as a whole. It just makes me think that the next 4, possibly 8 years will be nothing more then just a stall on what hole we have gotten ourselves into with the last administration. arguably you could say its a success if they dont make our situation worse, but im being optimistic,.

[Bye bye now have fun]

. For the time being, however, having just won an election in which Obama campaigned on changing the way government runs, promising a more transparent, accountable, and honest government, I don't think that time has yet come.

I think your absolutely correct. I dont see much change, much "yes we can" through the actions as a government as a whole. It just makes me think that the next 4, possibly 8 years will be nothing more then just a stall on what hole we have gotten ourselves into with the last administration. arguably you could say its a success if they dont make our situation worse, but im being optimistic,.

well hes already starting where bush stopped saying that they can warrentlessly wiretap and the courts cant review it. http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/04/05

[Sonthert]

Here's something to cogitate over. The price of oil has dropped, the main cause of the recession has been lifted, the economy will get going by itself...so are these "bailouts" just handouts at the taxpayer's expense? I'm not saying I believe it, but it could be said.

[Rani]

Jeez, the man hasn't even made the 100 days in office mark and everyone is already talking about how nothing's getting done and it's no different....... When's the last time you took on a new job and accomplished everything you planned in less than 100 days? Not to mention hiring staff, getting appointments through confirmation, getting to know your counterparts in about a thousand countries around the world.......

This time next year then yeah, we might have something to bitch about. I hated George W. with a passion but I gave him some leniency to show what he was made of. Unfortunately he proved me right, but hey.... at least I waited to see before having a hissy fit. And I'm a girl so you know we jump to conclusions!

As for the bail out.......... When a company I worked for went looking for financing, it took months with the requirements, paperwork, etc., before they got anywhere near the conference table where checks would be written. I can imagine how it must be when you're looking for government money and you're getting in deeper and deeper by the day. The US government never should have bailed out the airlines way back when which I think was the first bail out in history. It set a bad precedent. Now everybody thinks if it gets too bad they'll just go looking for government money instead of cleaning up their mess long before it becomes necessary for that kind of influx of cash. I think at this point they're so far deep into a hole that without government help they won't survive and I haven't come to a final conclusion in my own mind whether or not they should be left to go completely under since I'm not a economist who understands all the ramifications involved.

'Rani

[Bye bye now have fun]

oh he got something done, made all the dems that bitched about bush not caring about the constitution look like tools when he stated his support for warrentless wiretaps. i mean its just a old piece of paper right? no reason to listen to it

[Rani]

oh he got something done, made all the dems that bitched about bush not caring about the constitution look like tools when he stated his support for warrentless wiretaps. i mean its just a old piece of paper right? no reason to listen to it

GNU, what on earth makes you think they haven't been wiretapping all along without warrants, hmmmmm? I could be wrong, but I personally think that anyone who expects our government, or any government for that matter, to be honest, up front, and law abiding is, well, naive. Our government does anything they please whenever they please and then seals it up under "national security". They always have and they always will.

'Rani

[Bye bye now have fun]

the point is that he publicly enforced violating the constitution and him saying that there would be change and transparency and all the other crap. and it only happens because people let it happen. we are doing the same shit that our founders left england because. if people didnt put up with crap and made head roll it would stop. and the longer im in this major the more i see national security is a joke and just a veil for doing what ever you please Edited April 9, 2009 by GNUWorldOrder

[jayeee07]

1. The economy will sort itself out without him helping... Its how it works, haven't you taken econ?

2. Bobo- lol at your warped views and igorence.

Don't bother responding because I probably won't check back for a political arguement on a fucking hookah forum

[Rani]

the point is that he publicly enforced violating the constitution and him saying that there would be change and transparency and all the other crap. and it only happens because people let it happen. we are doing the same shit that our founders left england because. if people didnt put up with crap and made head roll it would stop. and the longer im in this major the more i see national security is a joke and just a veil for doing what ever you please

My founding fathers didn't come from England. They were here waiting on the English founding fathers to commit genocide against them despite having helped them survive in the first place. (Sorry if that offends - but it's a sore point for reasons I'm sure you can understand.)

The problem is that when any government whether of a country or a business is totally empowered, it becomes an entity in and of itself. As such it will have it's own view of what is and is not legal, moral, etc. And it will act in it's own best interest regardless of it's responsibility towards it's citizens, employees, and so forth. On top of that you add the fact that corruption is rampant in our entire system from Capitol Hill all the way down to the local police precinct. All of which pretty much guarantees that you are right - national security is a veil for doing as they please. While I completely agree that things should change and in fact our constitution insists that if the government ceases to serve us it should be overthrown, should anyone try doing so, there's that clause in other documents called treason and with the insititution of the Patriot Act, you don't even get a lawyer to defend you against the accusation. Is it fair and equitable? Absolutely not. Is it going to change in any of our lifetimes? Very, very unlikely.

'Rani