Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

On the Democratic side it began in the late 70's when the party refused to fight back when the hard right started painting them with broad brush strokes as weak on defense, tax and spend etc. Then along came the Democratic Leadership Council which did its damnest to push the party into some mealy mouthed conservative lite version that for all intent and purpose caved to the hard liners essentially abrogating its role as the loyal opposition and became the I'm a conservative too party robbing the people of any real valid choice.

reply to post by semperfortis

What is wrong with advocating and supporting a society where the Government does not interfere in the lives of people except in extreme circumstances; leaving each of us to make it or fail on our own merits? Please focus on the incentives in this question if you would as well as Taxes and overall size of the Government. I'm not totally against Social Programs as a whole.

“Advocating and supporting . . “ surely if we respect the First Amendment and the historical traditions of our ancestors dating at least from 1215 - the Magna Carta - there can be nothing wrong in advocacy. Likewise, I can also hope and argue that the majority does not accept or adopt that stance.

“ . . to make it on our own . . “ is not a philosophy I can subscribe to. I don’t want to make it on my own. I want to share. Some lay this hard rule - make it on your own - to the feet of Adam Smith, but I deny that is correct. That part is taken out of context, which Adam Smith had earlier described “an England where everyone had sufficient to eat, clothes to wear and a place to sleep.” THEN, you should be free to make it on your own! To that I can partially subscribe although not enthusiastically.

The two most significant - well “2 of the most” - significant laws in the 20th century were Social Security Act of 1935 and the Medicare Act of 1965. (I also hold the 1943 GI Bill of Rights Act to be equally significant, making 3 ‘most significant” acts).

Prussian Count Otto von Bismark, the unifier of modern Germany in 1871, wanted to industrialize the nation. Whereas rural families relied on many children to provide for them in old age, von Bismark wanted those young people in factories and the Army. So how to you support old people? Alas, he invented social security. 1870s.

Von Bismark wanted his people to be healthy. In many countries more than half the people were in poor health. You cannot be a good factory worker or a strong reliable soldier if you are in bad health. Again, ALAS, he invented socialized medicine where the government would furnish health care to ALL its citizens. 1870s.

Theodore Roosevelt attempted to provide both retirement security and universal health care when he was president (1901-1908) but the anti-government forces were TOO strong. In other words, it takes HARD times to make BIG changes. I regret to report that times are NOT hard enough YET to allow us to make significant changes in the delivery of health care in America. By significant I mean adding the uninsured and under insured to the current mix, AND LIMIT OUR PAYOUT TO THE CURRENT AMOUNT. $2.2 t. About $7,263.84 per person. Man woman and child. About $30,000 a year for a family of four.

That amount is more than the entire GDP per person for Cuba which gets better numbers in two critical areas, infant mortality and longevity than the US even before Michael More visited there.

Finally, when you have a prosperous society as we had - I should say thought we had - prior to 2007-08, we should have never incurred debt at the Federal level. Had we acted morally and fiscally responsibly we would have an extra $4t. to play with trying to recover from Reaganism. That - incurring debt like a drunken sailor - was a MORAL scandal! It was as bad a trick to play on America as John McCain played with Sarah Palin. NOT EXCUSABLE in either cases.


[edit on 2/17/2009 by donwhite]

Part of the problem in California is that all of the Republicans in the legislature signed Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform no tax pledge...

... a pledge that he essentially blackmails them into signing... if they don't sign it then his group will actively work to unseat the legislator... but once it is signed threatens to do the same if they ever do vote for a tax increase...

... any rate I heard a Republican legislator from California say this morning on NPR that the only way they would vote to increase taxes would be if it were a dire emergency.

Excuse me... one of the largest economies is tottering of the edge of insolvancy... facing the possiblity of shutting down the government which would include opening the prisons... and this is not an emergency?

In short they have put their no tax pledge and no tax ideology before the people of California.

They are fools and worse than useless and the whole lot should be thrown out of office.

Well Obama signed the over inflated and bloated "Economical stimulus" yesterday.

While Democrats claim Obama is doing "great" the Republicans claim he is failing so far.

But then again I am surprised at the Republicans rhetoric when they allow their President "Bush" with the help of 6 years of Republican hold to sink the economy to the ground.

So I wonder if they actually can tell how Obama is really doing right now.

Many economics (the ones that wall street and main stream media doesn't want to listen) tells that this economical stimulus will not fix anything but will add more burden to already an overinflated deficit.

Still the truth is that it will take about two years for some of the provisions on the "economical stimulus" to start working and many of them will not even be in effect until way later than that, by then Obama will be nothing but just another former president and the economic will be "whatever".

This "Economical stimulus" doesn't count the next "bailout" that will be coming our way as early as this "spring" as the "banks and automakers" need more tax payer money.



[edit on 18-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by grover

Part of the problem in California is that all of the Republicans in the legislature signed Grover Norquist and his Americans for Tax Reform no tax pledge ...... a pledge that he essentially blackmails them into signing ... if they don't sign it then his group will actively work to unseat the legislator ... but once it is signed threatens to do the same if they ever do vote for a tax increase ...

In short they have put their no tax pledge and no tax ideology before the people of California. They are fools and worse than useless and the whole lot should be thrown out of office.

Here follows a breakdown of the $787 billion Stimulus Package signed by President Obama yesterday in Denver.

THIS SHOWS WHY I’M PROUD TO BE A DEMOCRAT!

$160 b. income tax credits
$70 b. Alternate Minimum Tax patch.
$14 b. enlarged Child tax credits
$14 b. enlarged education tax credits
$8 b. incentives for home and car purchases
$11 b. to finance school facilities
$7 b. invested in distressed areas
$14 b. for renewable energy sources
$5 b. faster business depreciation
$3 b. for General Motors

$87 b. for Medicaid
$36 b. for continuing unemployment benefits
$25 b. to pay part of health care insurance for laid off workers
$14 b. for cash payments to retirees, veterans and disabled
$19 b. to digitize medical records.

$54 b. to states to reduce cutbacks in services
$25 b. for special education and low income children
$48 b. for transportation infrastructure repairs
$11 b. to modernize the electric grid
$41 b. for updating water works, sewer plants and Federal buildings
$29 b. for health and science research
$13 b. for various low income housing programs
$20 b. for additional food stamps

Thank you Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter. You do love your fellow Americans!

[edit on 2/18/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Well if that is the brake down I don't see where the permanent jobs to help the growing unemployment fixfit in there, also, that "stimulus" looks like just another "yearly" government spending "budget" but this time the tax payer tag is in the Trillions.

It seems that for years to come that is the estimate of our yearly budget anyway, adding the various bailout on the side like a dish with the main course.

It seems that is nothing in the Stimulus to stimulate anything but the deficit.

Go out and spend with your 8 dollar tax cuts, and made sure that you spend it well as china is going to love Obama after this one.

reply to post by marg6043

Well if that is the brake down I don't see where the permanent jobs to help the growing unemployment fixit is in there, also, that "stimulus" looks like just another "yearly" government spending "budget" but this time the tax payer tag is in the Trillions.

It seems that for years to come that is the estimate of our yearly budget anyway, adding the various bailout on the side like a dish with the main course. It seems that is nothing in the Stimulus to stimulate anything but the deficit. Go out and spend with your 8 dollar tax cuts, and made sure that you spend it well as china is going to love Obama after this one

ALL government spending STIMULATES someone. When you buy an F16, General Dynamics is stimulated. And all their sub contractors. When you buy a M16 rifle, Colt is stimulated. Etc.

Agreed, that some expenditures may STIMULATE more than others. But for the most part, that is PURE guess-work and all too often means only the speaker’s favorite is a stimulus while your’s is not.

IF by stimulus you (in the plural way) mean cost effective ways to put dollars into circulation at once then I offer: 1) unemployment insurance; 2) partial payment of health insurance for laid off workers; 3) food stamps; 4) cash payments to old people, vets and the disabled; and 5) low income housing programs.

Other areas where I can see immediate jobs created or saved are, 1) incentives for home or car purchases; 2) faster businesses depreciation; 3) to states to reduce layoffs due to declining revenues; 4) transportation infrastructure repairs; 5) direct payments to GM. We ought not to overlook the very kind hearted $87 b. for Medicaid which I’m pretty sure the GOP would have resisted. Which ironically goes not to the POOR but to those who deign to treat the poor.

Lacking 60 votes in the Senate (Dems have 58 and MN is in the works), the Dems are held hostage to 1 or 2 Republican senators. The Dems found 3 to work with and have had to make concessions they would probably not have made but for the arcane US Senate and its 3/5ths rule. The GOP no doubt demanded the $160 b. income tax credit, the $70 b. alternative minimum tax “patch” and a couple others that the Dems could have lived without, but in order to get the package out and running, President Obama delivered on his promise to CHANGE the way W-DC works! He could have stone-walled and the public would have pushed the GOP to go ahead in a week or two.

IMO.

[edit on 2/18/2009 by donwhite]

Housing plan "details"

$275 Billion in total plan - 9 million mortgage holders helped (at least that's what it says)

That averages out to $30,555.56 per mortgage that our taxes will pay, Although our Pres. says it will cost the taxpayer Zero. How that math is done, I don't know...

This is ALL supposed to stay within the TARP budget (thought all that was already spent)

Some say it will just delay foreclosure, not stop it

Official White House Q&A on the Housing Bailout

NOTE: Complete eligibility details will be announced on March 4th when the program starts.

And there is such support that the White House may use Celebrities to "sell" the new program

Other programs that were designed to stem foreclosures and have proven to be FAILS

reply to post by redhatty


So they are using the the mortgage help part of the stimulus to transfer into the TARP money so the banks can go ahead and start refinancing the mortgage loans.

So the first TARP money from last year was a gift from the tax payer to the banking institutions.

Interesting, as the banks are going to need additional TARP money soon.

That will without regulation will bring once again the Shark loan officers to start profiting again at the expenses of the homeowners with loopholes.

No regulation no control of how banks can do with that money.

The irony, as the Obama stimulus doesn't say anything about how to handle the Sharks.





[edit on 18-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


I really think they don't have a clue what they are doing, but that is just MHO.

Is it just me, or has there suddenly been a noticeable silence from the Obama support group here at ATS?

Then again now that yet another Obama cabinet member is found to have not payed taxes, this time it's Rahm Emmanuel maybe, just maybe they are starting to become disillusioned.

If the private sector is unable or unwilling to spend to grow (aka you can't make money unless you spend some) then it is up to the government to do so... that was the logic behind the new deal and that is the logic behind the stimulus package.

As for the housing rescue package... first off the banks should not have been pushing these sub-prime loans to begin with and default swaps should have remained illegal. Second of all while there were greedy and crooked people involved on both sides its obvious that most of them were on the lender's side. Also (from experience) when you go into a closing they go through things so fast and with such legalese goobly goop that its next to impossible for the average joe to understand what they are signing on to.

Finally.... if I own and I have been playing by the rules, why should I bail out my neighbor? Because foreclosures and falling home prices effect you regardless and vacant homes drag down the value of the neighborhoods around you... In all reality helping your neighbor is in your own best interest.

As for the banks... they knew what they were doing... they shouldn't recieve a single penny more from us and should be made to eat those bad loans.

[edit on 20-2-2009 by grover]

reply to post by grover


But that is not what our corporate ruled government is doing, the entire Obama cabinet and its economic team is full of lieutenants from the same corrupted banking and institutions that got us into this mess.

So guess to whom they are going to cater too.

Still the banking institutions are holding to those toxic assets like if they were gold.

For what they think be better days ahead, meanwhile we the taxpayer are forced to pay for their loses while they wait.

And still you don't see anyone of those scam artist in jail or been prosecuted for any wrong doings.

Sadly as long as only those (bankers, lawyers, lobbyists etc.) people enter government service then thats all we will get... at the same time so long as the people remain ignorant of how the government functions... then it doesn't matter who we elect... even "Joe the plumber" because they will still be ignorant.

The Above Politics Show here on ATS is looking to do a show with your impressions of President Obama. See the thread below.

Your views on the new president

Let's return to the matter at hand.

What does everyone think is going to happen over the next 60 days?

Are citicorp and bank of America going to fail and what do you think the administration is going to do about it?

We simply cannot continue propping up every rotten bank.

reply to post by grover


What makes you think we have sixty days?

It makes no difference what becomes of the banks. It makes no difference what we think... "they" will do whatever they "think" is right. because...
It is worth a chance.

No.It is not worth a chance, HOPE it will work. "They" needed to get it RIGHT the first time... and YES WE CAN HOPE for a CHANGE.
Hope in one hand and crap in the other. Get back to me which fills up first.

The stock market will drop another 250-300 points on Monday, Feb. 23.
Followed by a rise of 2000 points on Tues., another 1000 on Wed.

Come Thurs. kiss it all bye-bye.

A little projected HOPE by our esteemed leader might in itself help a bit. But I do not think that will be forthcoming, due to his lack of self-confidence and dislike of the American citizenry. His arrogance, alone , will not help him out of this one.

reply to post by pyrytyes


Because that was the timeline given in the article cited on this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

So much for the economical stimulus, government no only is going to need another bail out for the banks, but also to bail out the government until the end of the fiscal year.

Interesting that the fiscal year budget is not enough in the economical stimulus to cover for government spending.

Meanwhile the government is sending its envoy with Hillary in the front to go around the world begging countries like China to keep financing our outrageous spending.

The thing is Marg deficit spending has been a time honored way to prod an economy out of a depression for, at least a century. The stimulus package is not the same as the bank bailouts... initally I was opposed to the bailouts, then I was swung around to grudgingly endorsing them but since I have swung back the other way...

... if they were too greedy and corrupt to get us into this mess then their officers should be tried and imprisoned and the banks allowed to fail.

And... I am coming to think that doing that would do as much to stimulate the economy as the stimulus package would... after all they are just continuing to drag us down so just let em fall on their own.

Grover is you are watching the hearings by the Senate financial committee the talks about privatizing the SS came out for the first time since Bush 2004 presidential campaign.

The Federal Reserve will be taking into consideration the privatization of SS.

So what power does the Federal Reserve have to take over the privatization of the SS.