Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Obama the New Head Coach of the Detroit Lions or the President of the United States?
One of the most off-putting dimensions of Barack Obama's presidency so far has been his constant invocations of how, hey, he just works here and you've got no idea how messy the living quarters in the White House were and we're just barely able to walk around now after cleaning up the dump...
Was it really a surprise to Obama that he was inheriting big big big deficits (that he helped create and expand as a U.S. senator and then as president when he signed a pig-stuffed spending bill just a few months ago)? Or two crap wars (that's he pushing on with)? Or freeing Gitmo terrorists (he was for closing the joint before he was for just kind of forgetting about it). Or the White House Easter Egg hunt (hey, he didn't start the damned tradition, but he was more than willing to continue it). Etc. Etc. Etc.
His first 100 Days weren't spent redefining American governance, they were spent bitching and moaning about what a turd his predecessor was and what a wreck of a country he'd just inherited. None of that's wrong per se, but it quickly becomes as tired as Joe Biden's gaffs. But give Obama credit for two smart managerial moves: First, always follow a losing coach. Second, constantly remind people that, though verily you walk on water, you're just a man.
Still, the president was at again yesterday in Green Bay, Wisconson, when he informed the crowd of cheese heads that, goddamn it, "Health care reform is not something I just cooked up when I took office." No siree, but it is something he's gonna spend the next six months completely screwing up.
There are signs that the American people, the very bestest and smartest in the world (or certainly the mid-region of North America) are growing weary of such presidential bellyaching. From the Wash Post:
On some issues, [his poll numbers have already dropped]. It was widely noted earlier this week that a Gallup survey showed a measurable uptick in the percentage of respondents who disapproved of Obama's economic policies. And a new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Americans disapprove of current U.S. policy toward GM. Numbers like that will affect Obama, regardless of whether it was him or President Bush who started the country on the path of bailing out auto companies.
Note to Obama: Folks are fine with pols who are slow getting out of the blocks, but nothing will turn us off quicker than a leader constantly lowering expectations because the guy before him stunk up the joint.
|6.12.09 @ 10:05AM|#
Is there a point to this column?
I think as long as G.W. Bush's failures affect the country
negatively, it behooves us not to forget who's responsible. And I
don't see how Obama loses by reminding people that the country's
sorry state isn't really his fault, no matter how itchy
conservative elements are to dump it all on him.
|6.12.09 @ 10:11AM|#
Tony, if you find yourself in a nightmare caused by the overspending of your predescessor, the answer isn't to triple spending. Blaming Bush will work for another few months, after that watch the poll numbers start diving.
ed|6.12.09 @ 10:16AM|#
"Health care reform is not something I just cooked up when I
took office."
Dr. Obama insists that he just wants a little "competition" for the
evil insurance companies. That should work out just fine. What
could possibly be unfair about competing with an entity that can
print its own money, tax its customers, jail its opponents on a
whim, make or break the rules at the point of a gun?
EJM|6.12.09 @ 10:16AM|#
...Green Bay, Wisconson...
Nick, as punishment for misspelling the Badger State's name, I
sentence you to having to listen to every single audio file on
the Miss Pronouncer
site.
|6.12.09 @ 10:18AM|#
Let's not forget that this is a president who campaigned on the idea that his mere existence in the White House will cause the ocean levels to lower, enemies to be come friends, the lion to lie with the lamb, blah blah blah. And how about that stimulus package, that had to be passed immediately in order to turn around this train wreck of an economy? He got into the White House on his own high expectations. I'm not about to cut him slack for not meeting them.
|6.12.09 @ 10:22AM|#
I think as long as G.W. Bush's failures affect the country
negatively, it behooves us not to forget who's
responsible.
Okay, Tony; now, point to a substantive effort on the part of the
Presidential Suit to remedy any of those failures.
"I drink your hope. I drink it up."
|6.12.09 @ 10:22AM|#
Ultimately the President gets blamed for the economy. Bush
wasn't responsible for the tech bubble bursting or the recession
that happened afterwards. But that didn't stop Democrats and their
media from saying he had the worst economic record since Hoover.
Ultimately, the economy recovered and Bush got credit in
2004.
Bush didn't make Obama lie about the stimulus. The stimulus was
sold as a way to have unemployment peak at 8%. How is that working
out? Obama will be the first President since FDR to face his first
mid term election without one quarter of positive GDP or employment
growth. This despite two rounds of TARP and $700 billion stimulus.
That is going to be quite a record.
What is really scary is that when the economy does at least stop
contracting, we are going to get inflation. Normally you stop
inflation two ways. First the fed raises interest rates to get
banks to borrow less and encourage people to save. Second, the
Treasury sells its T-bills on the open market further reducing the
money supply.
There are two problems with doing this this time. First, to be
effective the Fed has to go all in and ring every possible
expectation out of inflation in the system. That causes one hell of
a recession (see e.g. 1982). Second, the last time we did this, we
had a small deficit and a lot less debt. Because the deficit is so
high and the debt so high, the Fed can't raise interest rates
without running up the price of government borrowing, which we
can't afford. Further, T-bills are getting harder and harder to
sell right now. It is not clear that the Treasury will be able to
sell enough of them when the time comes to sop up the extra money
supply. Worst of all, a spending addicted Congress could just keep
printing money and spending inflation be damned.
There is no good way out of this. But there are ways out of it. But
those ways are not something that The Obama seems interested in
doing. It is just insanity.
Xeones|6.12.09 @ 10:32AM|#
Shorter Tony: Don't hold people responsible for stuff they are
responsible for.
Even shorter Tony: I am sooo dumb, you guys.
Brian Defferding|6.12.09 @ 10:33AM|#
It's bad enough that people say WES-con-sin, now they're misspelling it too! :-)
Heinrick|6.12.09 @ 10:34AM|#
" but it quickly becomes as tired as Joe Biden's gaffs"
Who get tired of Joe Biden's gaffs?
On a more serious note, as long as your predasessor was from an
opposing party, what politician wouldn't blame them for as much as
they could for as long as you could. Our "leaders" don't get to the
positions their in because the have a tendency to be honerable and
take responsibility for their mistakes.
Warty|6.12.09 @ 10:34AM|#
Quit responding to Tony with ad homs! You're just showing the anti-intellectual and cowardly nature of libertarians! Plus, you're conceding his points!!!!!
|6.12.09 @ 10:38AM|#
I am both fearful and jealous of Tony's vastly superior intellect. This is why I am compelled to belittle him.
|6.12.09 @ 10:43AM|#
Obama bears full responsibility for continueing TARP, passing a usless stimulus that will greatly reduce the government's futur options, wasting billions paying off the UAW, passing draconian CAFE standards that will do nothing but make cars less safe, Detroit less cometetive and us all poorer. He also plans to raise taxes massively at a time of economic weakness. His program added up is a recipe for disaster. No "George Bush did it to" is going to excuse it.
T|6.12.09 @ 10:45AM|#
And I don't see how Obama loses by reminding people that the
country's sorry state isn't really his fault
Here's a quick lesson in presidential responsibility, Tony. If the
Executive Branch does it after you took the oath of office, it's
your responsibility. If you sign a budget or an executive order,
it's your responsibility. So all the horrible things going on that
Bush started are now Obama's, too. He has either continued the
existing policy, made things worse, or not done anything, all of
which means he's equally culpable. He wants to get credit for good
things, he needs to do something good.
|6.12.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Bush tried to stop the overextention of credit to those who
probably couldn't afford it, and was slammed by the Barney Frank's
of congress as an evil ogre who wants to keep the poor from
enjoying a house.
Bush also tried to do something about the social security system ,
which will crash eventually, to the rasberries of the Dem's.
And NOBODY has done anything about the biggest shoe that will drop
, the unfunded pension plans accross the land.
But keep the faith Tony, although wiretapping phones and
waterboarding enemy combatants didn't cause the financial crisis, I
am sure you and your ilk will still blame Bush for any rough
patches for decades to come, and feel the moral superiority that
your type constantly craves.
SockPuppet Wearing Asshole|6.12.09 @ 10:51AM|#
Brian Defferding | June 12, 2009, 10:33am | #
It's bad enough that people say WES-con-sin, now they're
misspelling it too! :-)
Thanks for the pronunciation lesson. Most people I know
mispronounce it Wis-yawwwn-con-sun.
|6.12.09 @ 10:53AM|#
John, in my ignorance of all things economic, I am unsure of the
outcome in the economy if everything were left alone to resolve
itself. I, for the most part, agree with Obama's work on the
economy, energy, health care and foreign affairs. He did inherit a
bit of a mess and I am willing to allow more time for him to
produce results. Maybe that makes me a naive retard, but I voted
for his "hope and change" and I stand by that decision. Time will
tell if I was right or wrong.
I do agree that Obama should spend less time pointing backward and
more looking forward.
SockPuppet Wearing Asshole |6.12.09 @ 10:55AM|#
P Brooks | June 12, 2009, 10:38am | #
I am both fearful and jealous of Tony's vastly superior intellect.
This is why I am compelled to belittle him.
Did you know that Tony read Finnegan's Wake. I bet none of you
'anti-intellectual libertarians, as he once put it, have ever
accomplished something like that.
|6.12.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Maybe that makes me a naive retard, but I voted for his
"hope and change" and I stand by that decision.
They lowered the IQ cutoff for retards at the same time they
monkeyed with the BMI categories. So I doubt you're a naive retard,
though you may have become naively obese.
|6.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#
"I, for the most part, agree with Obama's work on the economy,
energy, health care and foreign affairs."
Since Obama continued nearly all of Bush's foreign policy and kept
the same people in DOD, you must have been a big fan of Bush.
|6.12.09 @ 11:11AM|#
Keith Olberman said just this week that the polls show the public is calling for big government. I don't know where he's getting that. Two polls I saw recently on CNN and the Gallup Poll shown above in the article show a different story.
Xeones|6.12.09 @ 11:12AM|#
at the same time they monkeyed with the BMI
categories.
What the fuck was up with that, by the way? I was towards the upper
end of "healthy," actually lost weight, and suddenly i'm
"borderline obese?"
|6.12.09 @ 11:13AM|#
"I, for the most part, agree with Obama's work on the economy,
energy, health care and foreign affairs."
I don't agree with any of the above.
|6.12.09 @ 11:14AM|#
I'm not as interested in blaming the Bush administration as I am in seeing them prosecuted for their numerous high crimes. And I don't blame either Bush or Obama for accepting mainstream economic advice that massive spending was the only way to prevent a painful long-term economic slump. On Obama I'm with brotherben. Waiting and seeing. As long as he doesn't make things worse I'm happy. The needless damage done to this country under Bush is unprecedented in recent history, and I'm not a romantic enough to assume America will always come out on top. We may be in for a fall as spectacular as our rise was in the last century. Certainly with the goofballs and special interest puppets in Congress real reform is proving difficult at best.
|6.12.09 @ 11:22AM|#
"But keep the faith Tony, although wiretapping phones and
waterboarding enemy combatants didn't cause the financial
crisis"
But the wars Bush started and his bailouts and putting prescription
medicine on Medicare and all the pork he signed for have all
contributed to our current mess. Of course, Obama is going to make
it worse.
|6.12.09 @ 11:23AM|#
"Most of the cheeseheads I have met say, "Whizz-gahn-sen."
Whizz standing for Cheese Whiz?
|6.12.09 @ 11:29AM|#
What the fuck was up with that, by the way?
I believe the correct response is, "Yo, fuck the BMI." ;)
But I personally believe it was a way to make the obesity figures
skyrocket overnight so it could take on epidemic status and justify
all sorts of government intervention in health care and eating
habits.
JB|6.12.09 @ 11:29AM|#
Of course, Obama is going to make it worse.
He already has. The retarded monkey quadrupled the previous largest
deficit on record. In my eyes, he is already 4 times worse than
Bush.
|6.12.09 @ 11:31AM|#
Sort of like defining an alcoholic as anybody who has more than two drinks more than once every six months?
|6.12.09 @ 11:32AM|#
"I'm not as interested in blaming the Bush administration as I
am in seeing them prosecuted for their numerous high crimes."
I would also like to see that, Tony, but it's not going to happen.
Bush and Cheney will get off scott free just like the Clintons
did.
"And I don't blame either Bush or Obama for accepting mainstream
economic advice that massive spending was the only way to prevent a
painful long-term economic slump."
They both took bad advice. The best solution for an economic slump
is to reduce spending and taxes. But politicians don't have the
conviction or the balls to reduce spending.
"We may be in for a fall as spectacular as our rise was in the last
century."
And will that be all Bush's fault or should Obama receive a lion's
share of the blame for all his big spending?
T|6.12.09 @ 11:32AM|#
As long as he doesn't make things worse I'm
happy.
You must be one sad fucking panda, then.
Xeones|6.12.09 @ 11:32AM|#
But I personally believe it was a way to make the obesity
figures skyrocket overnight so it could take on epidemic status and
justify all sorts of government intervention in health care and
eating habits.
Horribly, depressingly, you're probably right.
Spoonman|6.12.09 @ 11:33AM|#
I'm gonna whore this link again: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stimulus-fraud-could-hit-50-billion
|6.12.09 @ 11:37AM|#
The retarded monkey quadrupled the previous largest deficit
on record.
Well that was not necessary. Have you no sensitivity at all?
.
.
.
I think you owe all the retarded people out there an apology.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 11:39AM|#
"The needless damage done to this country under Bush is
unprecedented in recent history, and I'm not a romantic enough to
assume America will always come out on top. We may be in for a fall
as spectacular as our rise was in the last century."
Agreed Tony on Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc. I am certainly not a fan of
Bush or the past 8 years. But the sad reality is that the Democrats
supported all of that. Obama voted for the war spending when they
came up. He has not made any changes to Bush policy in these areas
I most wanted to see Hope and Change in.
With regard to the economy. Obama when he was a Senator and the
other Democrats voted for ALL of Bushes crazy stuff last fall. Heck
most of it they pushed completely. THEY OWN IT TOO!
The other reality is that no one can point to a single policy or
deregulation that the Bush admin came up with over the past 8 years
that caused this crisis. Again not a defense, just need an example.
No one can come up with one. I can tell you how Barney Frank and
folks like him caused part of the problem by insisting banks loan
money to folks so they could be homeowners regardless as to whether
they were qualified.
I don't hate Obama because I like Bush, I hate Obama because he IS
Bush. Nothing has changed for the better on foreign policy or the
economy, he is just continuing the the things he was supposed to
change.
It all smacks of Johnny Rotten's line mumbled from the stage: "ever
get the feeling you've been cheated?" Yes Tony, yes I do.
|6.12.09 @ 11:39AM|#
"I would also like to see that, Tony, but it's not going to
happen. Bush and Cheney will get off scott free just like the
Clintons did."
Obama is continueing those very same policies right down to the
"increased innterrogation techniques." He also is abusing
government power at a huge rate. Read about his firing of the
Americorps IG after said IG exposed 400K worth of fraud by a big
Obama donor. Those kinds of things used to be scandals under Bush
and Clinton. Now they are just nothing I guess. Obama is a cult and
his followers will never question or criticize anything he does.
That kind of absolute power is going to corrupt him like it does
everyone. God help us all.
|6.12.09 @ 11:40AM|#
but it quickly becomes as tired as Joe Biden's gaffs.
Is this some kind of reference to his hair plugs? I just keep
thinking of Biden with various types of metal hooks or spurs.
Oh, you mean gaffes.
|6.12.09 @ 11:41AM|#
My older sister is retarded. She has held down a productive job in the private sector for 30 years now. She has never stolen anyone's money. Never lied to anyone I know of. She has never attracted a creepy cult following complete with social realist art. And most importantly never contributed to bankrupting the country. I resent her being lumped in with Obama.
alan|6.12.09 @ 11:44AM|#
But I personally believe it was a way to make the obesity
figures skyrocket overnight so it could take on epidemic status and
justify all sorts of government intervention in health care and
eating habits.
Horribly, depressingly, you're probably right.
Relax. When the heads of the National Institute of Health realized
that their new boss would be categorized as emaciated, they were
sweating bullets thinking of how politically damaging that could be
for their budgets and influence in the health care establishment,
so they got the bright idea of changing the standard.
They'll go back to the old standard after 2012, or even a much more
lenient one, if the Republicans nominate Limbaugh.
Rice Bingham|6.12.09 @ 11:44AM|#
Cheeseheads will ultimatly be the downfall of this great
nation.
Not Bush
Not Obama
Not Democrats
Not Republicans
Not facists
Not socialists
Cheeseheads.
Book it.
|6.12.09 @ 11:46AM|#
And I don't blame either Bush or Obama for accepting
mainstream economic advice that massive spending was the only way
to prevent a painful long-term economic slump.
Earth to Tony-
That's "mainstream *political* advice" you're referring to.
|6.12.09 @ 11:49AM|#
John, I apologize for using the term "retard" in my post. I
didn't intend to offend.
James Ard, No I am not. There are some bothersome things that Obama
is doing and not doing. I do try to sort through the information
available and make somewhat informed decisions. Obviously, my own
opinions sway my decisions. Bush wasn't wrong all the time and
Obama isn't right all the time.
|6.12.09 @ 11:54AM|#
The best solution for an economic slump is to reduce spending and taxes.
I think that's the worst solution. The best way to cure an economy
that's contracted into a non-spending fetal position is for the one
entity with the resources to stimulate that economy to curl up and
do the same thing?
It's easy to hurl criticisms when your only concern is how much the
government is spending. We'll never know what would have happened
in the absence of the stimulus spending, but things would likely
have been even worse than they are.
|6.12.09 @ 11:55AM|#
BrotherBen.
I wasn't offended no worries. But honestly, the retarded mentally
handicapped and the like seem to do a lot less damage to the
country than alleged errudite ivy league educated geniuses seem to
do.
|6.12.09 @ 11:58AM|#
"I think that's the worst solution. The best way to cure an
economy that's contracted into a non-spending fetal position is for
the one entity with the resources to stimulate that economy to curl
up and do the same thing?"
I guess you think that money comes from the obama fairy. If the
government spent less and taxed less it would leave more money for
people to spend and create more incentive to work and be
productive. It is only a forumala that has been tried and worked
about 1000 times over the last 200 years and pretty much built the
modern world. But, it does have the draw back of not allowing Obama
to fuck everyone up the ass and make them thank him for it. So I
guess it is off the table.
"It's easy to hurl criticisms when your only concern is how much
the government is spending. We'll never know what would have
happened in the absence of the stimulus spending, but things would
likely have been even worse than they are."
So basically no matter how bad things get or how many crimes Obama
commits, you will always have an out and a way to sleep at night.
It could have been worse. What ever gets you through the night
Tony.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:00PM|#
"The best way to cure an economy that's contracted into a
non-spending fetal position is for the one entity with the
resources to stimulate that economy to curl up and do the same
thing?"
Uhhhh cutting spending and taxes is not contracting into a fetal
position. It is a proven fact that if you put more money into the
hands of consumers, they tend to spend it more or save it which is
either good for retailers or banks, both of which need (ed)
help.
Sadly you are right, we'll never know if that would have worked or
not. We just know that what was done has not worked. We also knew
(those of us who didn't sleep through Econ 101) that what was done
was NEVER going to work.
|6.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#
John,
Your hysteria about how Obama's screwed the country up in 5 months
more than Bush did in 8 years is about as divorced from reality as
your claim that Reaganomics has worked 1000 times over.
|6.12.09 @ 12:05PM|#
"I think that's the worst solution. The best way to cure an
economy that's contracted into a non-spending fetal position is for
the one entity with the resources to stimulate that economy to curl
up and do the same thing?"
Then why was Harding able to cut short the depression of 1921 when
he cut taxes and spending but Hoover and FDR with their increases
in spending caused a depression that lasted throughout the 1930's?
Some stimulus that was! Only the private sector can get us out of a
recession. The government should allow more money to stay in the
hands of the private sector for building up capital to increase
production and therefore encourage more consumption with the lower
prices of more production.
When the government spends money, it creates winners and losers.
There's no assurance that the money the government spends is going
into areas where there's consumer demand. Too many resources are
wasted.
alan|6.12.09 @ 12:07PM|#
Savings --> capital formation --> increased productivity
--> prosperity
Debt is the opposite of that.
The grand schemes of Keynes, The World Bank and IMF are always
applied to nations with less than optimal full employment, and
their attempts have been an abject failure with tragic results
because the theory doesn't distinguish between debt and
capital.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:09PM|#
"Your hysteria about how Obama's screwed the country up in 5
months more than Bush did in 8 years is about as divorced from
reality as your claim that Reaganomics has worked 1000 times
over."
Who gives a damn about Reaganomics when the issue at hand is that
Obama has managed in his short time to run up massive deficits,
moreso than the ones we were running during the misguided war in
Iraq. Oh and he's going to end that war any day like he promised me
in the campaign right? (crickets chirping)
|6.12.09 @ 12:10PM|#
"Your hysteria about how Obama's screwed the country up in 5
months more than Bush did in 8 years is about as divorced from
reality as your claim that Reaganomics has worked 1000 times
over."
How much of a deficit did Bush create in 8 years time and how much
of a deficit did Obama create in 5 months time? That should give
you your reality Tony.
monkey on juice|6.12.09 @ 12:10PM|#
"The best way to cure an economy that's contracted into a
non-spending fetal position is for the one entity with the
resources to stimulate that economy to curl up and do the same
thing?"
The economy is contracted into that non-spending fetal position
because the crack-cocaine of cheap & easy credit is no longer
available. Getting off the shit and going cold turkey sucks, but
ultimately its far better for the body.
|6.12.09 @ 12:12PM|#
Tony,
Obama doesn't even have a coherent economic policy. It is an insult
to Keynesians to call what he is doing Keynesian. I don't what to
tell you. You are too stupid to even argue with. I see so many of
your type around on the internet. Otherwise reasonably intelligent
people who know nothing about history, economics or economies
actually work. That would be okay, except that you think you know
things. You think you are intellectual and educated. When in fact
you know nothing. I guess the collapse of our edcuation system is
starting to show its effects.
Jordan|6.12.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Your hysteria about how Obama's screwed the country up in 5 months more than Bush did in 8 years is about as divorced from reality as your claim that Reaganomics has worked 1000 times over.
Letting people keep their money and spend it themself is
Reaganomics?
|6.12.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Does anyone here seriously believe that any person winning the
election could have made any significant positive difference in the
economy in 5 months? Or that the middle east would be all better in
those 5 months?
It must be Obama's fault because everything was just peachy dandy
when he took office.
JB|6.12.09 @ 12:17PM|#
John, when I use 'retarded' I am referring to the really, really
stupid and usually those like Obama who are willfully stupid.
The mentally handicapped people I have met tend to be great people
and a world smarter than detritus like Obama.
|6.12.09 @ 12:19PM|#
"Does anyone here seriously believe that any person winning the
election could have made any significant positive difference in the
economy in 5 months? Or that the middle east would be all better in
those 5 months?"
No you can't. We were headed for a serious recession. That is not
Obama's fault. But it is his fault that he used that recession as
an excuse to bankrupt the country.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:19PM|#
"Does anyone here seriously believe that any person winning the
election could have made any significant positive difference in the
economy in 5 months? Or that the middle east would be all better in
those 5 months?"
No I just expected differences from the crap of the prior
administration. Not more of the same. Re) the Middle East: It's
funny how all those anti war protests dryed up after he got
elected. Even though Obama is escalating the war in Afganistan.
Maybe those folks protesting were less than sincere. Maybe now that
they are Obama bombs it is all better.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"But it is his fault that he used that recession as an excuse to
bankrupt the country."
This is disaster socialism. (to borrow from N. Klein)
|6.12.09 @ 12:21PM|#
The Tonys (and Obamas) of the world don't understand wealth creation. Governments don't/can't create wealth, they just print money.
Gimlet|6.12.09 @ 12:25PM|#
John.
Why do you bother with Tony? He just tells us what he thinks but is
unwilling to back anything with a link. He says so himself. His
position is that if someone wants to know what he's talking about,
they can look it up themselves. If I wanna do research, I'll go
back to school.
Tony adds nothing to any debate.
|6.12.09 @ 12:26PM|#
Wealth creation in individuals(correct me if I'm wrong) is a
by-product of education, hard work, perserverance and financial
common sense.
question, how do we get this across to the huge class of folks in
this country that are in way over their heads? For taxes to go down
and government to shrink, this has to be corrected.
T|6.12.09 @ 12:26PM|#
We'll never know what would have happened in the absence of
the stimulus spending, but things would likely have been even worse
than they are.
So, you're okay with enhanced interrogation techniques, Tony?
Because that was Cheney's exact argument. Without enhanced
interrogation, things likely would have been a lot worse.
By the way, I have an amulet that will protect you from tiger
attacks. I've worn it for years, and have never been attacked by a
tiger. Since you seem like the type that would worry about tiger
attacks, I'll sell it to you for a mere $20.
|6.12.09 @ 12:28PM|#
True enough gimlet
"question, how do we get this across to the huge class of folks in
this country that are in way over their heads? For taxes to go down
and government to shrink, this has to be corrected."
Sadly, hard times are sometimes the only teacher. We have been fat
dumb and happy for 25 years now. We went 25 years with only two
very mild recessions and booms in between. That allowed a lot of
people to get rich on bullshit and for even more people to forget
how wealth is actually created.
|6.12.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Once again, in my overwhelming ignorance of economic theory, I believe that the obscene amount of government intervention is better than the alternative at this time. For it to get better, individual americans have to be more responsible for the feces in their own nest.
freeforall232|6.12.09 @ 12:35PM|#
@Tony - "...the one entity with the resources to stimulate that
economy..."
"What the government gives, it must first take away." John
Coleman
What you are saying is that if I have zero dollars and you have
100, the only way for you to have more is for me to take 50 of your
dollars and give you 1 back.
Will you be honest enough to admit that your view is horribly
incorrect?
|6.12.09 @ 12:35PM|#
brotherben, you realize that this:
Once again, in my overwhelming ignorance of economic theory, I
believe that the obscene amount of government intervention is
better than the alternative at this time.
Is the complete opposite of this:
For it to get better, individual americans have to be more
responsible for the feces in their own nest.
|6.12.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"For it to get better, individual americans have to be more
responsible for the feces in their own nest."
So borrowing trillions to bail out bankrupt banks and businesses is
going to help in the process? If you are correct, and I think you
are, then doesn't that advocate for less intervention?
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:36PM|#
"For it to get better, individual americans have to be more
responsible for the feces in their own nest."
That is the polar opposite of the obscene amount of government
intervention you are advocating. Intervention keeps people from
being responsible for their own actions.
Part of the problem today is that these companys (AIG, GM, etc.)
knew the government would not hold them responsible for the feces
in their nest. The government should not bailout and regulate
rather let them lie in it.
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 12:40PM|#
brotherben,
I appreciate that you post and express an interest in differing
views. I hope you are sincere.
This is the first thing you must remember about government
intervention: the government can only spend money from 2 sources:
that which it takes out of the hands of it's citizens, rendering
them less wealthy, and that which it prints, thereby making every
dollar in existence less valuable and all holders of dollars
poorer. Do you see a route whereby either of these strategies
enriches the nation?
|6.12.09 @ 12:44PM|#
My limited understanding suggests that without the govt interventions worldwide, the result would have been a massive global economic meltdown. The results of that being far worse than what we have at this time. But for long term stability, imo, the folks have to get their poop in a group followed by the govt backing down. It's the second part that worries the shit out of me as the govt isn't very good at downsizing itself.
spambot|6.12.09 @ 12:48PM|#
"It's the second part that worries the shit out of me as the
govt isn't very good at downsizing itself."
Indeed and agreed, which is why most of us here do not advocate
going there in the first place. It pretty much comes down to the
fact that once it is there it never goes away. I would probably be
more comfy with intervention if I knew it would stop. But all of
recorded history shows me otherwise.
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Not very good? Has the US gov ever downsized itself?
(Honest question - pretty sure not in 20th century on, but maybe
before that?)
Ben - which interventions do you think were necessary? Bailouts of
banks? Of insurers? Of auto manufacaturers? Or the make-work
stimulus bill (ARRA)? Depending on which you're talking about the
answer could vary a bit.
|6.12.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Scarcity, that is where it does get sticky. Arguments can be
made for and against them all. The job loss in auto mfg would be
nasty, but it's hard to justify helping a company failing for so
many different reasons. I am curious just how much the failure of
investments, made by GMAC, resulted in the overall failure of
GM.
The interconnectedness of all the groups you mention in the markets
suggests that all were needing intervention.
Like I said, i tend to think that intervention is less ugly
societally than letting them all fail and having others take their
place eventually. I don't know that there was/is enough private and
corporate money and interest to address the problems.
|6.12.09 @ 1:09PM|#
The alternative would eventually be marshall law to stop the revolution between the haves and the have-nots. Maybe my view is based upon the fact that I just don't have the stomach for what I believe would be the results of no intervention at all.
MNG|6.12.09 @ 1:11PM|#
"Has the US gov ever downsized itself?"
Overall or relatively (as a % of GDP or what not?)?
Either way, that's a good question. I hope someone with more
ambition than me steps up and provides an answer...
Gimlet|6.12.09 @ 1:22PM|#
"Either way, that's a good question. I hope someone with more
ambition than me steps up and provides an answer..."
I nominate Tony.
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Well, I'll argue against the auto bailout first then. GM and
Chrysler are bankrupt because they have a failed business model.
They cannot profitably produce a product that consumers want. This
means that resources are being used inefficiently as long as they
continue to manufacture cars. Which means that those resources
(both physical and human) could be put to a more effecient - read:
greater weath-producing - use. In other words, GMs continued
existence ensures the country has less wealth than would otherwise
be the case.
This country is as rich as it is precisely because such ventures
have been allowed to fail and be replaced. Creative destruction is
the heart of wealth creation because it directs resources to more
effecient uses.
There was also a lot of scare-mongering regarding GMs bankruptcy
and the catastrophic loss of jobs throughout connected industries.
But GM would not have been immediately liquidated upon declaration
of bankruptcy. They would have attempted to reorganize their
obligations while still making cars and employing people. Failing
that, their pieces would have been sold off in an orderly fasion.
In many cases, I have to guess Ford, Honda or Toyota would have
found existing factories tempting. In other cases companies
producing things neither you nor I can guess (which is why
command-and-control economies are always abject failures) would
have put GMs resources to more effecient use.
I don't deny there would have been pain for many employees. But
assistance to those employees would have been far less expensive
and far more efficient than propping up GM (both prior to
bankruptcy and in the admin's strongarm tactics in
bankruptcy).
Then there are the lessons (re: moral hazard) for future GMs which
seem obvious.
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Late in a thread. Positive: I don't feel bad posting multiple paragraphs. Negative: is anybody gonna read them?
|6.12.09 @ 1:50PM|#
I'm still reading them. Not sure if that's positive or negative. I don't have answers, just opinions. Maybe I'm not self assured enough to believe my opinions are the answers?
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 1:51PM|#
"Overall or relatively (as a % of GDP or what not?)?"
I'd be curious about both.
All we ever hear about when R's are in power are draconion budget
cuts, so it must've happened recently, right?
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 2:03PM|#
I think listening to dissent is always positive. So what do you think about what I said?
Forty-Two|6.12.09 @ 2:11PM|#
PDF file listing Federal Govt. budget history up to '06
here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget//fy06/pdf/hist.pdf
There are many years from the 1930s to the '80s where outlays as a
percent of GDP shrank from the previous year. In dollars, however,
after the 1950's the budget has gone up up and away.
|6.12.09 @ 2:14PM|#
Production profitability wasn't necessary due to the profits from GMAC and its investments. They were too short sided to see a problem with this. Consumers have been overbuying for decades. That also bit GM in the ass. When the markets took a dive, they were screwed all the way around. I don't know where the truth ends and the scare mongering begins. It isn't the govts duty to bail out failing companies, and surely Ford and Nissan and Toyota and others would have eventually filled the gaps, but could the american economy survive the loss of such a giant at this very time with the world economy being in such a tight? I think not.
|6.12.09 @ 2:23PM|#
"but could the american economy survive the loss of such a giant
at this very time with the world economy being in such a tight? I
think not."
Yes, because the assets could have been taken over by some other
entity. GM would still exist, but by another name and better
management.
|6.12.09 @ 2:26PM|#
Would some other entity have had either the cash or available credit to do such a takeover several months ago without any help from any government?
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Lots of companies use a loss-leader strategy. e.g., I've read Apple makes little-to-negative from iTunes, but make up for it on iPod sales. My own financial services industry is built around selling our core service for a fraction of its cost and making it up on future projects. Using cars as a loss leader for financing is fine, as long as people want to buy your cars at a price that covers your marginal costs. Which wasn't the case with GM.
|6.12.09 @ 2:40PM|#
"Would some other entity have had either the cash or available
credit to do such a takeover several months ago without any help
from any government?"
I don't see why not. There could be an aglomeration of buyers.
Scarcity|6.12.09 @ 2:42PM|#
"Would some other entity have had either the cash or available
credit to do such a takeover several months ago without any help
from any government?"
I'm getting outside my knowledge base now. I'm nearly certain no
one would have taken GM on as an acquisition (for $0 but assuming
all debts and obligations), but that different pieces of GM
(including experienced workers separated from their union
contracts) would have been very attractive to various companies in
better financial shape if bankruptcy became liquidation. The credit
situation would certainly have affected the price and speed of such
sales.
JB|6.12.09 @ 2:51PM|#
We are fucked. Pure and simple.
Nah, those without guns and the will to use them are fucked.
I look forward to fucks like Letterman getting raped and eaten.
|6.12.09 @ 2:53PM|#
I've been operating outside my knowledge base for years. Maybe I've bought a bill of goods here. I was not optimistic that the economic problems would correct themselves through private/corporate means without first diving in a way that make the 30s look like the early 90s. The collapse of GM, without the govt prop, may well have been the proverbial straw on the camel's back. In a "free" market is it wrong? Absolutely. Was it necessary for the future of our society? I believe it was, and is. Am i comfortable with the government using such a heavy hand? Not so much.
|6.12.09 @ 2:56PM|#
JB, it is my contention that we were in for a more serious clusterfuck without the bailouts.
EJM|6.12.09 @ 3:14PM|#
Cheeseheads will [ultimately] be the downfall of this great
nation.
Not Bush
Not Obama
Not Democrats
Not Republicans
Not [fascists]
Not socialists
Cheeseheads.
Book it.
I take it that you're a FIB.
Heriberto Vizcarra|6.12.09 @ 4:55PM|#
Tony couldn't have gotten those many responses if he had written
the article himself.
Not a brilliant article and the ad hominem comments worsen it.
|6.12.09 @ 5:05PM|#
Would some other entity have had either the cash or
available credit to do such a takeover several months ago without
any help from any government?
You can always find buyers for fairly priced assets. GM's market
cap was only a few billion dollars (and may have been overpriced at
that).
Ordinarily, however, buyers buy going concerns in order to change
things. The things that need changing at GM, though, probably need
to be stripped away in bankruptcy or left behind in a
liquidation.
So, a buyer for GM as a going concern? Probably not in its current
form, but not because of price. That should tell you something.
|6.13.09 @ 2:11PM|#
Then why was Harding able to cut short the depression of
1921 when he cut taxes and spending but Hoover and FDR with their
increases in spending caused a depression that lasted throughout
the 1930's?
The post-WWI recession was not nearly as severe or deep as the
great depression. The accepted history of the great depression is
that massive government spending ended it, and only when Republican
deficit hawks gained influence did recovery stall.
Sean Scallon|6.14.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Of course the number Nick conviently didn't point out in the
Gallup Poll is the number 67, as in 67 percent personal approval
rating for Obama, which for a presidency six months into the job is
still very good and compares favorably to his predecessors.
No doubt there will be disagreements with this policy or that
policy coming from the Administration, there always are. It doesn't
matter. Obama gains with the public because he is trying to deal
with the situation in the same way Reagan benefited in 1981 in
dealing the messes Jimmy Carter left him. It's the same thing and
it gives him the appearance of being in command. Clinton, by
contrast, did not apppear to be in control of anything in 1993 and
his presidency suffered accordingly. This not 1993, not even
close.
Obviously Obama's poll numbers will rise and fall depending on the
economy, wether unemployment continues to rise or inflation rises
too at the same time (stagflation anyone?). The same is true for
any President. What doesn't affect poll numbers is shrillness and
obbsession. If it did, the Obama's numbers would be in the 30s and
Republicans ascedent. One need only look how Republicans and
conservatives overreacted to Clinton throughout the 1990s (or
anti-Reagan leftists in the 1980s for that matter) or they way they
are acting now to realize that belleyaching internet columns don't
have much of an effect either.
Obama's opponents can either deal with his policies by proposing
new and better ones of their own and let the debate rest upon these
and force the Administration to react to them, or throw weekly
temper tantrums about "socialism" even though the the U.S. has
enthusiastically embraced socialism since 1933, various poll
numbers throughout notwithstanding. Unfortunately it seems that
whining comes a lot easier for libertarians and conservatives
nowadays than new thoughts.
Obama, as the President, is entitled to enact his policies and if
they fail as we all are confidence they will, then they will fail
and he will be punished accordingly. If you are worried about the
nation as whole don't be, because I'd like to think we're stronger
than one's ability to wreck everything. Or maybe its the fear
around here is not that Obama will fail, but that he will succeed
at some level which will throw everything you believe in doubt.
It's scary fear I grant you, but if you say you believe in open
minds as much as you do open markets, then your dogmas should not
prevent you from seeing new realities.
In closing may I provide you all with this link to better exemplify
my point: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/95871
Oh by the way, Californians who can't spell Wisconsin should not be
calling its people cheeseheads.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245