Obama Presidency Watch/post election & first 100 days

reply to post by ConservativeJack


They have been doing that for the last 6 years, that is why now they are in so much trouble, because the economy is not doing good either.

State Spending -- The Last Prop Holding Up the Failing Bush Economy

Sorry to say but is bound to get worst and Obama knows that and in order to start a economic recovery he knows that states and local governments need help in order to keep away from a total economic colapse.

State and city governments have yet to shrink the economy; indeed, they have even managed to prop it up. They have quietly maintained their spending at pre-crisis levels even as they warn of numerous cutbacks forced on them by declining tax revenues. The cutbacks, however, are written into budgets for a fiscal year that begins on July 1, a month away. In the meantime the states and cities, often drawing on rainy-day savings, have carried their share of the load for the national economy.

So actually they are working with what they have.

At $1.8 trillion annually in a $14 trillion economy, the states and municipalities spend almost twice as much as the federal government, including the cost of the Iraq war. When librarians, lifeguards, teachers, transit workers, road repair crews and health care workers disappear, or airport and school construction is halted, the economy trembles.

www.mydd.com...

reply to post by donwhite


The problem is Donwhite that even with all the facts prop by links many supporters of the Bush administrations can never see the damage that has been done to the nation and its economy.

Yes I am very familiar with Reganomics, interesting that when Papa Bush came into power after him he didn't have any choice but to raise taxes to save the government it was in such a mess.

The promises of no new taxes from Papa Bush went down the drain.

The thing is it is simplistic to the extreme to think that with all the work that needs to be done on the national infrastructure...

not to mention all the other problems that are facing us... (and I am not even talking about Obama's promises) that we can deal with it all by slashing budgets and cutting taxes hoping that will raise revenues.

Note that in 2004 the GAO did a study and came to the conclusion that even with the war in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, we as a nation would still be in the black if it weren't for bush minor's tax cuts.

Yes budgets need to be reined in but the glut is not in what most branches of the government do but in the bureaucrats.

But not only do we need to rein in budgets we need to eliminate subsidies... and all that largess and tax cuts that governments give big business and they need to start paying their fair share.

Consider... if we cut taxes on business... we cut taxes on the wealthy... we cut taxes on the middle class and then give trillions in bailouts...

Whats left to work with?

Sooner or later we are to have to stop this damned fool notion that we can have everything and not pay for it but rather pawn it off on our great great grand kids.

In short there is a lot more to being responsible than tightening your belt and cutting taxes.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by grover]

This is my opinion too for how to deal with CEO's with their hats in their hands:

www.gocomics.com...

Washington has it bass ackward... help the states, help the localities, help the people and they will help businesses... it never seems to work the other way around... screw socialism for corporations.

Originally posted by grover
Washington has it bass ackward... help the states, help the localities, help the people and they will help businesses... it never seems to work the other way around... screw socialism for corporations.

100% True!

Without corporations, there will still be people and there will still be an economy, but without people with money, how can a corporation survive!

Help the people economically, and when they are able, THEY are the ones that will keep the corporations stay alive and well by spending money!

Why bailout a corporation when nobody has the money to buy their products right now. All you are doing there is propping them up in hopes that SUDDENLY, the people with no money will start buying their product again, and if it doesn't happen, they'll just be back at the door again begging for another bailout.

Originally posted by Keyhole
Without corporations, there will still be people and there will still be an economy, but without people with money, how can a corporation survive!

That is why I have never understood the short term logic of shipping jobs overseas to places where wages are a quarter an hour.

Its kinda like killing the goose that lays the golden egg. Corporations aren't that goose though they would like you to think that they are... no the middle class is the goose... when you reduce wages, reduce benefits and either hire illegals or ship jobs overseas... you are killing the middle class.

It is one of the things that struck me about Obama was he focused on the middle classes now lets see if he carries through.

What does everyone think of his economic team and Bill Richardson as Commerce sec.?

reply to post by grover


Well I see no reason why Richardson shouldn't have the job as secretary of commerce he has a decent track record and presumable less baggage then some of the more experienced heads in Washington DC . I was backing Richardson to be Obama VP pick so I am not exactly disappointed that he has been appointed to cabinet .

One issue not raised in this thread that is of vital importance of the affordability of studying at University or College as Americans are so fond of calling it . Obama will need to tackle this issue if not in the 100 days before the current bunch of purely idealogical driven right wing kook's that make up the majority of the Republican party have a chance to take back congress .

The issue is also discussed in this thread .

Originally posted by xpert11
reply to post by grover

 

Well I see no reason why Richardson shouldn't have the job as secretary of commerce he has a decent track record and presumable less baggage then some of the more experienced heads in Washington DC . I was backing Richardson to be Obama VP pick so I am not exactly disappointed that he has been appointed to cabinet .

He and Edwards were my first picks for President and VP so I am not displeased that he is in the cabinet either though I wanted him to be the Sec. of State. I thought Health and Human Services would have been the perfect place for Hillary.

I was lucky... as a Vietnam error (yes I know how its spelled ) vet... my college was paid for and later because of a service connected disability my vocational rehab was paid for as well... not all are so lucky. Some states like California offer either free tuition or significant discounts for in state tuition, others don't. I really don't know what the answer is about education is.... obviously having corporations back schools creates a whole slew of conflicts of interest, especially in regards to research... but so does government backing but if this keeps up some kids no matter how bright will never be able to afford a decent education and others will be saddled with debt to the day they retire... neither bodes well for the nation and while I am for some form of national health care I am not so certain about schools... but you are right it needs to be addressed.

So what does everyone think about Obama's backing down on windfall profits taxes on big oil because of the plunge in price?

reply to post by xpert11


The problems with colleges is not so much that prices are going to get high.

The problem is that deflation is showing its ugly head, if is affecting retail you bet that is going to affect anything else including college tuitions.

As the credit crunch spreads and is frozen, Banks are making more unfordable to obtain a loan, interest may get higher, people are already holding to their pockets so many will hold back on their education to see if the nation's economy gets better.

Colleges works for money, right now many states are working in their emergency funds, that is why Obama early this week got together with governors, because if states collapse so everything else linked to them, police force, teachers, public transportation and you name it local colleges

So what will be next, deflation in order for colleges to make money prices will have to come down, that means no enough money to keep the standards of education at a reasonable high.

Many small colleges will have to close.

So is not so much about the prices getting high and not loans to be given but the problem of students holding back and colleges no having enough money to function.

reply to post by marg6043

Yes I am very familiar with Reganomics, interesting that when Papa Bush came into power after him he didn't have any choice but to raise taxes to save the government it was in such a mess. The promises of no new taxes from Papa Bush went down the drain.

All too many Americans remind me of a drunken sailor staggering down the street trying to find his ship before it sails. Even Obama had to FOLLOW THE SCRIPT to promise MORE government for LESS money (taxes). It is de rigueur for Americans. NEVER talk sense. ALWAYS talk crapola. The guy with the biggest SMILE wins the Americans endorsement! Of course this critique applies to RED state-types.

Obama mammoth stimulus plan may already be in the road to failure.

The new administration has promised to create 2.5 million jobs and slow the endemic outsourcing that has been so destructive to our economy. Obama has backed a second, larger, economic stimulus package in hopes of propping up consumers. The proposed stimulus package encourages spending on major infrastructure projects, health-care modernization and green technology to create manufacturing and service jobs.

www.economyincrisis.org...

It will not be his fault, but the fault of an America that has lost the components to successfully comeback to be the industrialized nation that made it number one no so long time ago.

Many experts believe that the stimulus package and promises of Obama will be leached to the countries that has been replacing America as the manufacturing superpower.

As America has lost his industrial base and everything to outsourcing, Obama has forgotten that we are nothing more than consumers, any stimulus will be lost on that consumerism and in the hands of foreign nations.

While his plan seems a good Idea America is been run in its infrastructure by foreign companies that bring foreign workers with visas to take jobs away.

The problem with this plan – and with the previous stimulus – is that it carries no enforcement to keep spending in the United States. With gas, food and commodity prices at an all time high last spring and summer, the first stimulus package was largely sucked up by these items. A significant chunk of the $100 billion package went directly overseas and did nothing to help Americans. Will the same be true of a second effort?

Without major change in laws and policies with adding another gargantuan debt to the one we have now and stopping the leeching oversea the stimulus package of Obama will face nothing but failure.

America's financial crisis and deficit budget is due in part to the last 25 years of America consumerism living in debt and borrowed money to be able to finance that consumerism.

www.businessweek.com...

Like I said without major, major laws and change in policies the problem will not go away.




[edit on 4-12-2008 by marg6043]

reply to post by donwhite


Reagan the Hero, I laugh every time that people try to prop the Regan legacy in a pedestal, it is with his presidency that the take over by corporate America started and the decline of America status as superpower.

my favorite phrase

Regan was no a politician he was a great actor that his most brilliant performance was to play the role of president.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by marg6043]

Reagan was great if you were rich, white and male, but if you were poor, or black (or any other ethnic group) or a woman or had AIDS, or cared about he environment or was in a union... he wasn't your president... and I am not saying that as a partisan thing... but its the truth... he just didn't either care, or get it.

He really wasn't that hot of a president... the right loves and worships him because he got them into the halls of power.

I have never gotten so misty eyed and gaga over a president the way some on the right get when you mention Reagan... I swear I think some of them get sexually aroused at the mention of his name.

I doubt there will ever be a president that could get me that way... not Kennedy, not Clinton, not Obama.

Still in retrospect compared to bush minor, he wasn't that bad... that's not to say he was all that good though.

[edit on 4-12-2008 by grover]

More challenges to Obama as the unemploymet hits dangerous highs.

What a challenge the new president have when is not light at the end of the tunnel while we are still under the Bush administration.

Payrolls plunged by 533,000 last month, the biggest loss since December 1974, after shrinking a revised 320,000 the prior month, the Labor Department said today in Washington. November’s losses exceeded all 73 forecasts in a Bloomberg News survey. The jobless rate rose to 6.7 percent, the highest level since 1993.

Payrolls are likely to keep sliding into next year as the collapse in credit and slump in spending hurt companies from General Motors Corp. to Citigroup Inc. and AT&T Inc. President- elect Barack Obama, confronting what he called a “crisis of historic proportions,” announced a plan last week to save or create 2.5 million jobs over two years.

bloomberg.com...

And Obama's first huge mistake since the election (in my opinion) is asking his supporters in an email to help pay off Hillary's campaign debt...

My thoughts and return email are here.

What do you guys think about that?

Originally posted by grover
I doubt there will ever be a president that could get me that way... not Kennedy, not Clinton, not Obama.

I get that way about Obama. I'm just peeved at him right now for asking me for more money.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That was a surprise but hey with all the publicity he got and he been so charismatic I have not doubt that some will come to the rescue and help pay for Hillary's debt.

Sorry to say this but hey I have not a penny to spare right now.

I am sure I got one but since I never open political e-mail I probably just threw it away... I think he should pay Hillary's bills, if he wants to, from his remaining war chest.

But there may be a legal catch to that, I am not sure.

reply to post by grover


There should SOME money left over from his campaign!

Barack Obama Campaign Raised Nearly $1 billion, Shattering Records

I'm sure he didn't spend almost $! BILLION!

reply to post by grover


I just heard today that he had $30 million left from his campaign. I don't know if it's going toward the inauguration party or what, but I don't think he should be able to hand it over to her... Then again, I gave it freely for him to use and if that's what he wants to do with it, it's ok with me. I'm just not sending any more!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I just heard today that he had $30 million left from his campaign. I don't know if it's going toward the inauguration party or what, but I don't think he should be able to hand it over to her... Then again, I gave it freely for him to use and if that's what he wants to do with it, it's ok with me. I'm just not sending any more!

I’m pretty sure Campaign Finance Rules do not allow transfer of donations from one camp to another. Were that the case, I think Obama would have already paid the $7 m. she ended up short. Don’t worry, nobody holding that PAPER doubts it won’t be paid.