CrowdQuery: Was Obama Too Cautious During Panic
>
Martin Wolf, who has been more right during the period leading up to the crisis, and thereafter, than anyone else I can think of, blames the present economic malaise on political timidity: Obama was too cautious in fearful times:
“Suppose that the US presidential election of 1932 had, in fact, taken place in 1930, at an early stage in the Great Depression. Suppose, too, that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had won then, though not by the landslide of 1932. How different subsequent events might have been. The president might have watched helplessly as output and employment collapsed. The decades of Democratic dominance might not have happened.
On such chances the wheel of history turns. But this time was different: the crisis brought Barack Obama to power close to the beginning of the economic collapse. I (among others) then argued that policy needed to be hugely aggressive. Alas, it was not. I noted on February 4 2009, at the beginning of the new presidency: “Instead of an overwhelming fiscal stimulus, what is emerging is too small, too wasteful and too ill-focused.” A week later, I asked: “Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much.” This was right.
The direction of policy was not wrong: policymakers – though not all economists – had learnt a great deal from the 1930s. Sensible people knew that aggressive monetary and fiscal expansion was needed, together with reconstruction of the financial sector.”
Wolf is, of course, exactly correct.
Consider the economic might brought to bear on the credit crisis — it was overwhelming force, nearly everything the Fed, Treasury and Congress could throw at a banking problem created by the private sector. The net result was a rescue, but at a cost of immense moral hazard and further unjust enrichment of the folks who caused the crisis in the first place.
When the credit crisis caused a similarly monstrous economic crisis, it was met with a lackluster, compromised, half-assed response. The response from the economy to such half-hearted political has been a yawn.
~~~
CrowdQuery: Should Obama have been more aggressive during the early days of 2009? Should he have focused on Finacial Reform and Economic stimulus, and put aside Health Care? Should there have been bigger broader infrastructure stimulus, more government spending?
What say ye?
>
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
September 9th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
The president needs to be able to do more than one thing at a time. The credit crisis was a short term economic problem, and America’s healthcare was a long term economic problem. He needed to fix both.
He could have done that by being more aggressive with _everything_.
His “aw shucks, I dunno guys, what do you want to do?” approach to HCR is what turned that particular debate into a giant vacuum, where Senatorial idiocy quickly swept in to fill the void.
And it seemed obvious to everyone that when he picked Geithner et al that he was ready to be Wall Street’s submissive butt boy. And that is how they treated him.
His temperament is simply unsuitable for crisis, and he is therefore, currently, unsuitable for the presidency. Dude needs to grow a pair.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
3 problems were that the true magnitude of the economic shortfall was severely underestimated at the time, Larry Summers, & the de facto minority status of his party in the Senate
September 9th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I think he was too aggressive…I think our government should have done nothing, other than making sure no one starved or had no place to put their kids to bed at night. I believe the banks, real estate speculators, purchasers of CDO’s, and everyone else involved in the real estate bubble should suffer the consequences of their actions. I know many well-known companies would fold but that is the result of the moronic choices they made.
After the dust settled, we would have started fresh, with real estate prices marked to market, all non-essential employees let go, and a whole new generation of executives beginning to put it all back together again.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:11 pm
There was very little hope when President chose his economic team. Agree with previous comment that Obama showed no guts to stand against Wall Street – may be he never wanted to take them on. Maybe he is really friends with them.
But the country was in a horrible economic crisis. And the solution was mainly to bail out the banks ! Rest of the measures were nothing in comparison.
Yes, a president should do more things at a time. But, this crisis was too big – bigger than all other problems. So instead of passing a toothless FinReg bill, a very confusing healthcare bill, all-hands-on-deck approach should have been taken. Not just to help economy, but in punishing Wall Street to restore public’s confidence in the Govt.
Sadly, the POTUS turned out to be yet another nice-talking-robot controlled by big money. May be it was wrong for us to hope. (I voted for him – don’t regret it, as I could not have voted for McCain mainly because of Palin). But still, any hope I had at the time of voting for him disappeared quickly – very soon after he took office.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Oh – forgot to add. All the other stupid stuff that only succeeds in pulling demand forward – like cash for clunkers, incentives for first time home buyers – are going to result in reduced demand now and in near future. The whole approach suggests a complete mis-understanding of the root cause of the crisis.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
While I agree with the comments above that the President needs to be able to tackle more than one problem at a time, he still needs to understand priorities. How can you tout that it’s the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression and not make that your No. 1, 2 and 3 priorities. I believe his choices for an economic team also did not serve him well. He had a great deal of political capital after his election, but he allocated it poorly.
Health care and financial reform clearly needed to be addressed. If the economy were headed in the right direction at this point he’d have much greater leverage in controlling the debate. Instead, in both of these issues he was steamrolled by the Senate (a.k.a. Lobbyists).
If the midterm elections are a disaster I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Hillary challenge to the President in the 2012 Democratic presidential primaries.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Obama did everything possible given the current generational crisis in America. The Baby Boomer generation is not the Great Depression generation.
The Great Depression generation knew how to work, knew what poverty meant, and was willing to face the problem head on and get things done.
The Baby Boomer generation never worked an honest day’s work in their lives, never wanted for the latest and greatest toys, and as a result, grew into a generation of babies who refuse to lift a finger to solve America’s problems.
When the last Baby Boomer dies, this country will be great once again.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
BR, I’m confused.
In a previous post, you indicated strong disagreement with David Rosenberg’s conclusion that this is a depression.
Now, if I read you correctly, you indicate support for the proposition that President Obama should have embarked on an FDR / 1930s / Great Depression Era style program of infrastructure spending and other stimulus designed to combat a depression.
What am I missing?
September 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
lol
and if you think boomers are babies you should look at our children, at least we know how to boil water.
As to Obama being too timid, lol (snort)
Yeeess can you come up with anything he has done that he wasn’t timid or hesitant. Look up the definition of timid in the dictionary. it says “see Obama”
Jack
September 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Should he have tried (you need Congress to go along) to dump more money into the system? Yes. Could he have? Questionable. Did anyone in government conceive of the risk. I doubt it, certainly not…….. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield/Rove, they bailed the banks; should have been taken over IMHO. Would/Will any such efforts already spawn the next bubbble & inflation? I’m betting on it. It is the nature of the beast. A country that honors democracy and capitalism……..will go to extremes. Eventually, the piper will be paid, but my guess is the pound of flesh comes from the wealthy or at least the better off. Don’t own bonds…………
September 9th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I don’t know…
I do know we’ve had eight straight months of average 100K private sectors jobs. five straight quarters of GDP growth. Record US corporate profits. Seventy-five percent rise in equity prices, the $1.6T deficit is only slated to be $1.3T
If these were a GOP president’s achievements still in his first budget – eighteen months after negative six percent GDP, 750K monthly job losses, with structural trillion dollar deficits, after eight years of adding nearly $10T in debts – there’d be Rushmore talk from lobbyists like the Chamber of Commerce.
By using the anger of GOP political machine as his measure of the economy’s robustness, Martin Woolfe’s trying to justify his call for bigger stimulus. People, things aren’t so bad.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
@Jack
That wouldn’t be surprising…you raised them.
My own parents are of the Great Depression generation, and they taught me how to cook, fix cars, build a house, lay a brick wall, and write a dissertation, all by myself.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
I am guessing that the health care “overhaul” will be judged as one of the biggest wastes of political capital of all time. When faced with the potential destructiveness of the over leverage & mal-investment present in the banking complex, the resulting banking legislation was nothing more than ineffective compromise.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
It’s his approach to everything: piecemeal progress through accomodation rather than confrontation/revolution. There have been many opportunities when the prevailing situation was in crisis – be it financial, health care, wars overseas, energy police (BP in the Gulf) – when the prevailing situation was dire, and the powers that be were vulnerable and could have been forced into real reform. All opportunities wasted.
Just focusing on the financial: when FDR came into power, there was rarely an occasion when he did not explain very clearly to the public – who already knew – who was to blame for the Depression: the “economic royalists”, he called them. Whether you like Reaganism or not, Obama had a golden moment after his inauguration to use his fantastic oratorical powers to denounce the regulation-is-bad governing philosophy that got us into this debacle in the first place. He could have rallied the public to a powerful agenda of reform. Instead we get a simulacrum of reform, that makes everyone question who owns this man? It makes me realize that the Reagan revolution succeeded: government is now impotent before the very wealthy. Our democracy has become a sham, an artifice that increasingly fewer people believe in.
He campaigned on “Change” – well I guess I am sleeping better at night knowing that BO is less likely to blow up the world than his deluded and paranoid predecessors. I happened to listen to one of his campagin speeches a few months ago – the crowd was totally energized, as spiritually high as you could possibly be at a political rally, and ready to follow this man anywhere. What a letdown.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Cautious? Where was the caution when throwing money at the TBTF? That looked like organized panic to me.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Herb,
the bank bailout was a Republican led effort followed by massive support from that quasi private entity called the Fed. Obama’s choice was, do we change it or do we let it continue and true to form he mostly did.
September 9th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I think it’s important to remember that Obama ran to get elected president of one country (a functional USA) and basically got another. I also think we are quick to forget the government was in pure triage mode when he took office – priority one was to stop the bleeding, fast. The mechanics of government – the EPA, FEMA, MMS and Attorney General’s Office stand out as prime examples – had been eroded to the bone of competency. The country was already broke and getting broke-r quick.
Obama is a first-term president, one of the youngest ever elected, one without vast ties to the establishment and without years of trusted establishment advisers at his side. He faced a Republican party that would rather fiddle while America burns than put out the fire. On the other side ‘progressives’ from the left carped and called him out for ‘caving’ by trying to be bipartisan, which he was elected to do.
I personally think if you think a: having a 59/60 vote majority was WORSE for the president than a less lopsided majority would have been – it left republicans off the hook and they spent their time enticing moderate dems into taking their side. It gave Snow and Collins outsized power. A 52/48 ratio would have been better since Dems would have to work with republicans to get anything done; they couldn’t count on ‘whips’ to get the Dems all in line, which is difficult under the best of circumstances. I think once Republicans come to power they will have to lead, and that’s when the spotlight will be on them, and it won’t be pretty. I totally doubt they will retake the presidency in the short run, and I’d be surprised if they didn’t get this one off but start losing elections again soon after.
I also think he accomplished HUGE things: health care and finreg will all be fine-tuned over the coming years, and with any luck lead to some cost-savings. As someone who has battled to stay insured over the years I sure as hell applaud the effort. Once the economy rebounds people might start to appreciate the Consumer Protection Agency, the way he has overhauled government contracting, the drawdown in endless Pentagon spending, and the fact that he finally got us out of the wars Bush started, right or wrong. That’s a lot.
Hell of a lot more than Bush did in his 8 years, or Clinton for that matter. Both completely fumbled around their first 2 years in office; Bush was reading to kindeegartners about goats when 9/11 went down, lets remember. And does anyone seriously think McCain/Palin would have been better? Seriously?
September 9th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
Absolutely, what this President is failing to be is Presidential. How many times has he talked to the nation? How many Press Conferences without predetermined questions? Does not matter what Party you belong to, what you want out of your President during a crisis is some balls and compassion for those that got slaughtered by the “banksters”. He has provided very little. The only reason we see him now is because the campaigns are kicking off. There is a monumental difference between a President that relates to his citizens, like FDR did, and one who just pops up during a campaign.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Obama’s first year was a massive failure for two reasons:
1) The focus on Obamacare instead of comprehensive Financial Reform missed the golden opportunity of fixing the errors of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and CFMA. Glass-Steagall likely did need to be updated but not by tearing down all barriers. One of FDR’s biggest successes was restoring a semblance of order to the Financial Markets. Obama missed that lesson, big time.
2) The Stimulus was the correct strategy with awful execution. Tax cuts and blind spending do not rebuild an economy and now he has shot himself in the foot for a much needed Stimulus 2.0.
In my mind, my vision of “aggressive” would have been to call in the heads of all these institutions with their hands out and on one side of the table you have the FinReg bill and on the other side of the table you have the TARP funds and you congratulate the gentlemen that this is the first time in history they will get to leave the room getting the carrot in one end and the stick in the other. But maybe that’s why I have no shot at ever being in politics…
September 9th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
A lot was held back for the election cycle. Just now they are repaving roads that don’t even need fixing, while some real danger zones go untouched. It is just so wasteful and silly. The beat goes on.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
I agree with MrMike23.
He should have covered all FDIC deposits up to the limit.
He should have let house prices seek their own market decided level.
Other than that, if AIG/GS/JPM went under, too bad.
Someone would have stepped in and picked up the pieces, he bailed out those criminals, and they aren’t lending anyway.
But in the real world, it was all planned in advance, as usual.
After 9/11, a 1200 page “Patriot (Enabling) Act” is ready to go as if by magic.
Plutocrat bailout, same deal.
Obamacare, ditto.
Don’t blame Obama though.
“He was only following orders!”
September 9th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
One cannot become president today without becoming beholden to and getting approval from the elites who run the country from behind the curtain. Everything done by this and prior administrations makes perfect sense when viewed from that perspective.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Yep.
Should have focused on the economy out the gate when he had some clout.
Instead he went for health care and now he’s a disappearing pres.
Now, we’re going to get the crazies who think it’s time to cut spending and balance the budget when there’s no demand.
30s all over again.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Wolf was correct, though a bit late in the game. On April 9, 2008, I wrote THIS LETTER. Excerpt: “There is one cure, and one cure only, for a recession, or depression: Increase the money supply. How? By federal deficit spending. The federal government creates money when it pumps more money into the economy than it removes by taxation. The $150 billion stimulus package is an example, albiet too little and too late.”
.
Amazingly, there still are people arguing against tax cuts and spending increases. Slow learners.
.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
September 9th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
To be honest, all I remember from his first 6 months in office was the endless parade on TV shows and how his wife “guns” this and that and picking a dog for the white house and things of that nature. At the time when America needed a president to lead all we got one willing to compromise without a fight. And full disclosure I voted for the guy.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
Hey, he’s a Harvard graduate who only listens to other Ivy League graduates. They are not hurting. But they would hurt if the mismanaged, incompetent, overpaid and shady bankers had not been bailed out at outrageous cost.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
(1) Mr. Wolf et al. assume, with the Keynesians, that all economic crises can be mitigated or cured by government spending. The historical record says otherwise. Capitalism as a system needs crises; government stimulus can only alter the expression of same. (Think of the vast human cost for the “successful” military Keynesianism of the 1940′s and its Permanent War Economy sequel.) Mr. Wolf is a de facto apologist for capitalism, as is also accomplished by the “framing” of the problem by the corporate media–celebrating “complaints” about Obama’s ineffectiveness instead of pointing out that this is a “private enterprise system” and blaming the capitalists who evidently needed the crisis. (2) Whether Obama’s is a “failed” presidency depends upon your class point of view. From the standpoint of our rulers (the corporate/imperialist elite), it’s a win-win situation: They got bailed out, Obama gets the “populist” blame, they continue get what they want whether the GOP “wins” the elections or not. Once you figure out that Obama is a corporate tool, talk of his “options” becomes hollow–evidently our rulers didn’t want the sort of stimulus advocated by Mr. Wolf, so neither did Obama. (3) BR wonders whether should have “put aside health care [reform]” in favor of more Keynesianism. Sorry, BR, Obama already did so: The Obama “reform” is more properly called “corporate welfare” and is packed with time bombs for future failure, since the “reform” does nothing significant to curb the source of the problem, viz., putting capitalist greed between human medical need and its satisfaction.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
@franklin411
If your parents were Great Depression folks, then you are a Baby Boomer. If you wish all the Bay Boomers away, you are erasing yourself.
What happened to enlightened self interest? Go out and fix something.
September 9th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Let’s not forget that the President made no attempt to educate (not sermonize) the nation about the financial crisis and his plan for alleviating it. Instead he played a Beltway Insider’s game by acting as Legislator in Chief (health care) instead of leader. He could not have chosen a worse economic team, one guaranteed to waste money on Wall St instead of using it to actually stimulate widespread spending in the normal economy.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
It’s not an issue that easily lends itself to yes/no answers.
That said:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
agree with lala
folks forget what he was given, whether one wants to believe it or not………..social unrest was a possibility
suspending fasbe and such i’m sure behind closed doors he told wall street u got two years too clean up your mess or heads will roll, and we will try and save real estate
jmho, he has a tendency too piddle around, the quatano and gays in the military, and half a dozen other things should have been done in a week
getting involved in that cambridge crap was also stupid
letting the rich wall street guys who blew up the world make yet again record bonuses , and no one in jail, that basically was his big downfall, everyone knows fox is still in henhouse, lies divide the truth unites, so mostly folks feel lied too
he’s very measured and believes in compromies, not best in crisis but should be good in long term
September 9th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Well finding a way out of this depression is going to be tough. If we figure out a way it will be one for the books – the history and the economics books for sure. That said I think the first stimulus was basically wasted. It seems in Austin all we got was newley paved roads. Sure some of them were rough but I don’t think they made any difference at all. Obama should have marked a considerable amount of that stimulus money for large projects that would have maximized return. I’m thinking high speed rail, windfarms, a massive push into the sciences. TVA style programs. Instead we got mopac paved again. Relying on city government to produce “shovel ready” projects was a mistake. I think he will just have to go back to the drawing board and do it again. I hope he can do it.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I think we should have had a much more aggressive response to the financial crisis two years ago.
The only thing the US government should consider to be TBTF is itself. It was a grave mistake to treat its primary dealers in the same fashion, one we will be paying for generations.
Many or most of the people in power – the last two administrations, Congress, the Fed, Wall Street – thought and think that this is business as usual. There was a small group then, and a slightly larger one now, that thinks this is a very, very different situation, one not seen since at least the 1930′s.
I’m not sure that the kind of people who could handle the depression scenario properly are the kind of people who could get elected these days.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
If you remember back to the debates, neither candidate — in fact, none of the candidates — said a word about the economy (nor were they asked), until the final debate(s), at which point, the coming shit storm was apparent to all. During that time, commenters here, and at CR, and at Mish’s, and on a handful of other blogs, were well aware of what was imminent, and were already sounding the claxon-call to move to higher ground.
Legislative and bureaucratic capture of our government had already taken place (political contingent of government was too busy arguing over BS to be concerned with reality). The seeds had been planted and fertilized long before anyone in either political party understood just how systemic and entangled the corruption and incompetence was, or how damaging and extensive the corrosion of our broader economy had become.
Our political class is clueless. Our laws needlessly complex (by design — loopholes are all the rage in Congress).
Was Obama too cautious? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Obama chose from among the options offered to him, and inherited half-baked solutions. The man did not bother to do his own homework. He copied off of his frat brother’s papers.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
lalaland, you’re making a lot of extraordinarily good sense. Governing is a whole lot harder than talking about governing. And given the circumstances, Obama has done all right.
I don’t know where I stand on the health care vs. Wall Street reform question. I was inclined to agree with BR a while back, that health care should have waited . . . and yet then to my surprise, Obama & Congress managed to pull off both. Sure, they were weak bills – any bill that gets through Congress is going to be weak, at least if it’s something that you wanted.
BR, keep in mind that Obama is the President, not the Fonz. He can’t just hit the Capitol and make it play whatever tune he wants.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
@F411: If you’re looking for a fight, you got it.
Don’t write anymore until you know WTF you’re talking about.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I would disagree and am glad it is no more than it is simply because he got bad advice that treating this recession was just like every other post WWII recession–which it is not.
He is still trying to address things that need not addressed and not addressing things that need it… So it is kind of like being thankful that a bad mechanic hasn’t screwed up your car anymore than he had. Please, just give me back my car and I will find someone with a better grasp!
September 9th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
test
September 9th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Asking whether he should have been more aggressive presumes he even knew what was happening. He didn’t. He still doesn’t based on hims most recent proposals. R&D tax credits? When corporations are already sitting on trillions in cash? How bold. How creative.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Barry,
I don’t believe the issue is timidity. Obama is corrupt like Bush before him and Clinton before him and so on.
Addressing the financial crisis REQUIRED rico prosecutions, period. “Justice, though the heavens fall”, as they once said in Rome.
Okay, that’s not an option in the USA. But does corruption have to be so stupid? Even mafiosos avoid practices that are ‘bad for bidness’.
Ellen Brown knows exactly what should have been done and even after all the Bernake, Paulson, Geithner rape, theft and pillage, what the fed can do now to ameliorate the problems in the REAL economy (i.e. main street).
She should be the fed chair and Brooksley Born should be treasury secretary. Forget the president, congress and the courts. They work for Wall Street. Wall Street is an amoral profit robot with no long term plan. It reminds me of a photo I saw as a kid of a grasshopper calmly eating some leaf while a praying mantis was eating the rear end of the grasshopper. Wall Street is dead and doesn’t know how to do anything about it. It is a one trick three card monte pony. The fed, however, is the actual ruling power in the USA and they DO have some (not much, but some) awareness of how screwed our economy is. If they have any sense of self preservation, they will follow Ellen Brown’s advice.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brown09092010.html
September 9th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Obama has no experience of managing anything and so lacks one of th things most of us that have managed things learn by experience: the importance of FOCUS and priorities.
That said, I don’t think the economy would have responded even had Batman been President. The fact is BOTH parties pis*ed a lot of money down a black hole instead of learning from how the Swedes effecteively managed a similar situation. A deleveraging recession of this magnitude simply takes time to work itself through. Perhaps another 6-8 years? Which would be right on schedule for the next 18 year secular Bull cycle AND for the NEXT Democrat Administration? Washington has become just a silly game.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
I think the answer is “it depends”.
What he probably should have done is gone gonzo and done the “Swedish Model” (not the babes) and temporarily had the gov’t take them over, clean house (execs get the boot), cleaned the balance sheets, and spun them out as healthy. So in that respect he was way too timid.
Instead, the train of the method was put on the rails by Paulson (Bush was AWOL). Obama’s mistake was letting it continue, though with the advisers he chose, that was going to be a given.
Even if the numbers and the targeting of the fiscal stimulus money was better, without having cleaned up the system that created the disaster, even getting the economy strong(er) again is of limited value.
It’s like helping the heart-attack patient (the economy – remember Buffett making the analogy?) recover and then letting him do his rehab on a lake frozen over with thin sheets of ice.
Ain’t no trust there – and that’s where the “lost decade” will really spring from.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
“Should Obama have been more aggressive during the early days of 2009?”
Does the sun rise from the East? Is the Pope Catholic? Would Spartacus have benefited from a Piper Cub?
I’ve watched Obama sacrificed opportunity after opportunity at the altar of bipartisanship coupled with his nauseating and incomprehensible deference to his totally Wall Street captured economic team. Everything for the elites, not much for the masses. Crony capitalism and protection from the justice system for the well-connected and wealthy, all the raw deals of “capitalism” for the rest of us. What’s not to hate?
He should have been on a 1) “Jobs! Jobs! J0bs!” and 2) economic stabilization WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR THE OFFENDERS since Day 1, Reichpubliscums be damned!
Since previewing “Inside Job”, I understand that item #2 of my proposed agenda would’ve been very difficult; there are too many guilty parties still hanging around DC. A president determined to get a real inquiry Commission a la Ferdinand Pecora would need a Pretorian Guard just to stick around us on this planet plus a billionaire-sized personal war chest for the next election.
As to “put aside health care” my answer is a resounding “Yes!” My take on HCR is far gloomier than most.
Let’s bear in mind one simple fact: HC is now 16% of total GDP; that is a lot of interested parties, ergo, a shitload of potential and actual lobbyists.
I’ve become convinced that there won’t be any significant reform of this non-system until widespread pain, unbearable economic hardship and utter despair becomes the norm. In a word, a smart politician would let the actual trends play themselves out; that means a reversion to the 30s or 40s, when a majority of people didn’t have any decent coverage to speak of and medical illness was a guaranteed one way street to death or bankruptcy. Only then would the popular rage would be strong enough to motivate the hoi polloi to do what it takes to overcome the political powers of the rentier classes that are sucking at the teats of people’s health while shamelessly buying out the cluster of whores populating Capitol Hill.
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the trends in health indicators deterioration in the USA, unique among all countries of the OECD in the last 60 years. Chew on that for a minute Ladies and Gentlemen. Add to that the ever rising costs of health insurance, the complete capture of the FDA by Pharma and Med devices manufacturers, the consequences-free rampant criminality and fraud:
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/09/at-end-of-summer-everybody-well-nearly.html
http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/?hpt=Sbin
and it is obvious that Obama missed a chance to pass up on a problem that, as things stands now, is pretty much intractable. It should go without saying that our attitudes and belief systems regarding health care also play a big role in this slow motion catastrophe. Read this:
http://healthcareorganizationalethics.blogspot.com/2010/06/consumers-dont-believe-in-evidence.html
and take a look in the mirror. Gonna be an interesting self-discovery experience.
I can only hope Obama learned his lesson…although I doubt it very much. Until he clearly displays an attitude and deeds that spells “Wanna fight…pussy?”, I ain’t gonna believe it.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Better than McCain, but still a FAIL by not calling out the Enforcers. He was chilled to stand down by his embeds who counseled him there was NO other way to keep the cash levers working without and through the same old member banks. No pain, no gain.
September 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Should Obama have been more aggressive during the early days of 2009?
Depends on the object of the aggression. In truth, he has no real power. He does not have real control of the lethal instruments of the US Govt. He could never exercise effective control over groups like Task Force 6-26.
http://gawker.com/5253522/washington-times-runs-photo-of-obama-girls-with-story-of-murdered-schoolchildren-in-chicago
Yeah, I know you’re talking about spending, regulation, blah blah blah. Having Larry Q for Quisling Summers in the WH ASSURED that nothing of substance or value would be done. Hell, the fact that Cueball Paulson conspired in Moscow hotel room to loot the US Treasury and seems to be unconcerned about any repercussions tells you everything.
Should he have focused on Finacial Reform and Economic stimulus, and put aside Health Care? Yeah, why not? Or he could have done something about all the unicorn sh*t piling up.
Should there have been bigger broader infrastructure stimulus, more government spending?
More transfer payments to the plutocrats? Yeah, that was the problem. Should’ve added a zero to everything.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
BigD sez
“In a previous post, you indicated strong disagreement with David Rosenberg’s conclusion that this is a depression.
Now, if I read you correctly, you indicate support for the proposition that President Obama should have embarked on an FDR / 1930s / Great Depression Era style program of infrastructure spending and other stimulus designed to combat a depression.”
Not really conflicting statements. Currently we may be (are) avoiding depression but much of that has to do with the strong antidepression efforts from 2008 and after.
Thing is many people dont appreciate what our depression era policy holdovers like UE insurance, FDIC deposit insurance and food stamps have done to prevent the extreme human collateral damage of the financial crisis.
Both the 1929 version and the more recent depression were financial crisis that had spillovers to the real economy.
The spillovers today were much less thanks to much of the first depression policy responses.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
another vote for MrMike23
“I think our government should have done nothing, other than making sure no one starved or had no place to put their kids to bed at night. I believe the banks, real estate speculators, purchasers of CDO’s, and everyone else involved in the real estate bubble should suffer the consequences of their actions. I know many well-known companies would fold but that is the result of the moronic choices they made.”
And the government sponsored abortion known as the Rating Agencies should have had their clocks cleaned by President O.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Yeah, I would have liked –would still like — to see him be a lot more FDR-like:
“The economic royalists hate me, and I welcome their hatred. The economic royalists have met their master.”
Plus a lot more stimulus.
And yeah, maybe putting off health care. I admire that he was playing the long game, as opposed to the ‘pubs quarterly-report- and election-cycle-driven thinking.
But he probably should have played the short game first.
Hindsight…
September 9th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
And yes the site is slow — 204 items loaded (!) to load this page.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
As much as I believe socialized medicine is needed I would have preferred that Obama dealt with the financial crisis first.
His team and Wall Street are so intertwined – and America’s attention span so ridiculously short – that it looked to me as if HCR was a diversionary tactic to get the arrogant, yet politically connected, criminal elites off the front page and out of the gun sites.
So now we have watered down versions of vague resemblances of half-assed policy in both realms and no-one is behind bars.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
We live in a nation that believes obama to be a radical islamo-socialist….polling data reflect that. We also live in a democracy and those things conspire to contrain him from doing the type of agressive things most on this blog think were required.
A better query would be to ask “How and why has public opinion been skillfully shaped against even his modest agenda? A how that limits necc. action by ANY politician?”
September 9th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
1. No, He should have been more wiser, especially in his economic team choice, and he was too aggressive in pandering to the republicans.
2. Definite, especially since the corporatized healthcare plan will likely backfire.
3. Heck Yeah; What the ASCE says since that is an example of wealth creation, instead we got a continuation of the FIRE Ponzi Finance Machine that was Gov’t financed because the private sector was wiped out or the smart players avoided it like the plague.
September 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Is Wolf really equating the current economic crisis with the Great Depression? The numbers don’t seem to bear that out. In fact… not even close.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
He was not insufficiently aggressive, he just did the wrong things. His boy Rahm said it all when he stated: “never let a good crisis go to waste”. Essentially, Obama used the financial crisis/ recession as an excuse to take over health care and to waste massive amounts of stimulus money by funnelling it to his political supporters. Actually solving the unemployment problem was (and still is) the furthest thing from his mind.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
44′s ignorance of economics is what is causing his downfall. He really doesn’t understand what is going on. How much of this is the fault of his advisors is questionable because I don’t think Summers or Timmy understand either. both are capitives of their backgrounds and institutions. They have the political experience to rise to the top of them. They used it to keep Romer from presenting her case, which interestingly enough should have been supported by Bernakke and his knowledge of the Depression of 1929-1942 had he to been not constrained by his institutions(that pandering on TV…) which might have been enough to take him on another tack.
Politically he is naive beyond belief. when you consider that he was a Senator his handling of the Health Insurance Reform Bill was a disaster. Ignoring the bill the Hoouse passed he soought 60 votes that included three Republicans. he let Sen Baucus lead the Gang of Six to find them and the gang spent 6 months taking Republican amendments and giving not a single vote.
This giving into the institution of the Senate and its prerogatives continually in a time of crisis means he is more worried about the people running the institutions than the institutions. We see this in the financial regulation bill and Timmy’s institutional approach to the financial sector both a NY FED President and as Treasury SEC. In the latter position we should have at least seen an attempt t save the banking system not the banks. Again a case of not understanding economics.
The most grevious mistake in my opinion is that during the early months of the Presidency he did not give the hoi polloi, the timid or the crowd the feeling that he understood what they wanted. As Proximo said, “Listen to me. Learn from me. I was not the best because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd and you will win your freedom.” The people he needed to kill were the heads of the financial institutions. He had the pwer in that they were all under TARP. All he had to do was excercise Sec 2, which is what he did when he saved GM and Chrysler, and take away their bonuses. Tell me he would not have won the crowd.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Agree or disagree as I might with comments above, I find only one area where there is some small chance of contributing anything meaningful to the debate. And that is my personal employment status as a scientist with the US Forest Service.
What I can tell you all from personal experience is that the Bush43 administration did everything it could, as fast as it could, to dismantle any federal regulation or oversight of any kind that might be construed by somebody somewhere as being at least potentially in the way of Business. Do not misread me – I am no Bush-hater, and I tire of the endless hyperbole directed at him and his. But the facts of his administration’s approach to governance are there for the reading. Regulations were taken apart. Agencies were de-funded. It appeared, from where I sat at the time, that the priorities were related to how severely the regulations or agencies were impacted by Clinton-era policies. Clinton’s National Forest policies were among the first to be taken behind the barn and shot. In essence, Bush’s team felt they had to be the anti-Clintons in order to make their mark, early and aggressively.
Discovering that the BP disaster was in part to blame on absurd relationships between the regulators and the regulated is of no surprise to me. This has been the order of the day since at least 2002. I would submit that some Bush staffers pushed regulatory dismantlement under the guise of anti-terrorism, riding the 9/11 wave for political gain.
When the Obama team began to try to govern, they were faced with fundamentally broken managerial systems. And in a difficult economic time, there was no political will to increase the agency budgets as needed to restore the capacity to meet their congressionally-established missions. Simply restoring an agency budget to its pre-2000 level would be seen as perhaps a 200% increase from 2007 to 2008. Couldn’t do that.
Just one example: The National Forest Management Act requires planning on National Forests. The budget line item (BLI) for that activity in the Region where I work was reduced 90% from 2000 to 2008. Hey, if you can’t plan, then you can’t make any decisions that might be anti-Business. Never mind that we are now fundamentally out of compliance with the law.
Sorry, I’m rambling. Yes, the Obama administration was too timid at the start. They were trying to be the nice guys, the thoughtful ones. This game ain’t for nice guys any more. It’s for ripping off heads. I must say I despair for the future.
September 9th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Obama needed to do more.
But, remember, these biggest banks needed to be restructured, and with that the Right Screamed “Nationalization”! So, we were not able to restructure the banks because Limbaugh saved the Bankers from getting Fired. If we could destroy Fox-Saudi News and Koch-Brothers-Limbaugh we could have reformed the banking sector.
But the real problem started with Moral Hazard: Once you let the banks write Mortgages, take a fee, and pass on the risk in a CDO, you were bound to get this bubble and crash. Who didn’t see that coming?
September 9th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Andrew: Obama’s Healthcare take over.
- What were YOU going to do about 40 million people unable to afford Healthcare?
- What were YOU going to do about people getting clobbered by the “healthcare” Bankruptcy Tax?
- What were YOU going to do about Insurance Industry Rescission: Illegally breaking a contract with a paying customer who happens to get seriously ill. Insurance companies routinely cancel 2% of their sickest patients! Get real man, stop repeating right wing empty headed corporate talking points.
You come up with a better solution, and we all will listen.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Should Obama have been more aggressive during the early days of 2009? Yes. By arresting and recovering all ill gottin gains.By stimulating the jobs market with 1 million auditers.To find who gained from the financial mess and start recouping back bonuses and homes( if neccesary) from brokers,bankers, traders insurance traders ect.As of now with no action taken the WORLD does not trust the markets of America.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Obama should have:
1. Taken control of the stimulus and focused it on jobs, jobs, jobs. Too much of the stimulus was wasted on renewals that could have been done later.
2. He needed to get someoneunderstood how the banking system worked and how it got into trouble to procter the study hall of people who were writing the financial reform bill. Too much time was wasted and essential problems weren’t fixed
3. He needed to build capital to work on health care.
4. He needed to be cheerful, the great genius of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
5. He needed to take aggressive control of the rhetoric and stop letting all the crazies in both parties yabber endlessly and stupidly.
Remember that, for most people, the financial crash of 2008 hit with the force and speed of a Hurricane Katrina, with collateral damage no one expected.
All that said, I’m bloody thankful that it was Obama was raising his right hand on Jan. 20, 2009. The more I watched John McCain during the campaign the more I became convinced he had no clue how the economy worked, what was wrong with it and thus had no idea what to do. And his running mate … Well, I leave that for others.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
I think that you are missing the point on Q1. Obama was aggresive… in maintaining the status quo. He put Elizabeth Warren, Austin Googlsebee, and Volker out front during the campaign and then pulled the rug out from the under them and gave the real power to Summers and Geitner. Summers worked for a hedge fund making $5 million a year working a day a week, and Geitner is going to be getting similar work soon. One of the reason Obama is getting killed was his call for change was a total lie. Can you list one thing that Obama has changed?
The calls for “we gotta do healthcare” seem especially ludicrous now that the law’s main effects don’t start until 2014. Again, this shows Obama not as a reformer but a gutless insider. Why does the health care law not kick in until two years after the 2012 election? My answer and the answer I think on a lot of American’s minds is because the gutless pols who passed this law want to be out of harm’s way when the law goes into effect.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Looks Like US Corporations were playing Politics with our LIVES.
They are just starting to borrow, too late for the November Elections.
Just another reason to NEVER vote “Republican” again.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479712501514050.html?mod=WSJ_Markets_RightMostPopular
September 9th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
Yes, Volker should have been given more power, to do what needed to be done.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Yep. One of my favorite beefs.
I discussed it here:
http://thecenterlane.com/2010/09/06/those-first-steps-have-destroyed-midterm-democrat-campaigns.aspx
. . . and again (at the link below) after I read your piece about the Infrastructure Report Card:
http://thecenterlane.com/2010/09/09/lack-of-stimulation.aspx
September 9th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
There is little doubt that President Obama was way too timid and that his advisers sort the middle way not the right way. It seems to me that the American view of democracy and its interplay with the economy got in the way of the type of rescue America needed. It is easy for me to say as an Australian who is an observer rather than directly effected so please excuse. But the timidity with which both sides of politics treated the Banks and Wall Street guys who caused this has left us with a more muddled aftermath and more likely the second round to come. Lehman, Morgan Stanley, Citi and maybe one or two others should have been nationalised wiping out both equity and bond holders and showing the real downside of complicity in the ludicrous schemes. This way wall street gets wiped out, main street gets protected and the Government, as Main Streets representative, gets the upside. It would have been uglier economically but we may have been able to come back harder and sustainably. But whether you hear from Barney Frank, Richard Shelby, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner or beyond concerns about government intervention in the market prevented the lancing of the boil. We treated cancer with ibuprofen and not surprisingly it spread.
Sometimes you have to fight to stay a nice guy and perhaps sometimes the government just has to take charge of companies for the greater good. Obama was too timid but without letting AIG or one of the other banks fail to cause a deeper crisis could anyone have done anything else or gotten anything bigger through congress. Unfortuantley we’ll never know. The key now is to get those millions of Americans baack to work as soon as possible and that must mean another, more targetted, stimulus package.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:18 am
I believe that Obama failed to clearly develop his plan to reverse the economic difficulties and failed to enunciate those to the American public. He was elected by Democrats and Independents and he needed to keep that coalition together. Instead, everyone wandered away, the lobbyists, special interests and the leeches in Congress made a mountain out of every molehill and effectively stalled any progress.
Remember the concept of improving the energy grid and other things that were economically positive? Instead he listened to those who wanted to blow the money out there right away. Take a pill and feel better within 30 minutes! He needed to explain that this was not a 30 minute problem. Instead he left the impression that it was and that he’d cured it. Now folks realize that they feel bad again and blame Obama. Last week was only his second Oval Office address to the nation. Fireside chats??
He chose health care out of a long list of things to do and probably intended to quickly get on to the rest. The 1/6th of the economy whose ox was potentially being gored pushed back.
I’d bet Obama was surprised how visceral and adamant his opposition was. Blend together Washington politics, funding by special interests into reelection compaigns, and those who deep in their soul resent the upstart N-word, and you have a glue that binds together a totally irational and implacable opposition. What might be good for this country is forgotten.
So, we can do the Goldilocks debate – whether he spent too much or too little. But in the final analysis the problem is that he had an excellent opportunity to communicate, lead and be followed and he blew it. Maybe we should take it to Constantinople? Rome is not looking too good right now.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:43 am
There are three types of presidents:
1) there are leaders, like Reagan and Kennedy, who capture the public and use the bully pulpit of the presidency to drive the nation in directions they chose
2) there are bureaucrats, who are following the lead of the Congress, and who do little in the way of actual leadership
3) there are the freeloaders, who are there for the prestige that comes with being president, and don’t know how to manage or lead.
It’s too early to say whether Obama is #2 or #3, but it is clear at this point that he is no leader. And if there were ever a time when we desperately needed leadership, now is that time.
My own personal thinking is that he is pretty much like Dubya — along for the ride, being steered through his presidency by the cabinet he has created to do his thinking for him and to isolate him from the substance of the job. His financial “judgement” comes from Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, and his efforts to influence Congress are handled by Rahm Emmanuel. God help us all.
September 10th, 2010 at 1:25 am
Barry, isn’t it kind of silly to be asking a community of economic policy wonks whether their pet concerns warranted more attention from the President than other matters?
September 10th, 2010 at 7:12 am
Look ‘ya’ll.
Read thru a couple dozen comments…. mostly right on…. too timid? – YA THINK, what’s with health care, in the middle of a financial meltdown??? Slave boy to wall street Masass!!! ya, all of that. Absolutely no leadership at a time when we needed it most.
However, what it is, is something else. Can’t quite put my mind to it tho, kind a fuzzy and all mixed up and stuff… but it’s definitely somump else. The best I can come up with is this: spiritual bankruptcy. I know, don’t really know how to add anything to that that would clear it up, but I’m quite sure that’s it. Not on his part, on our part. This nation has lost it’s way… stumbling in the dark madness of too much power and too much ease and too little responsibility. Leads me to think an ass whupping a comin’.
September 10th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Yes, President Obama’s tactics could’ve been more aggressive but his policies were tempered by Republican politics which produces the watered-down results we have today.
September 10th, 2010 at 8:12 am
Fixing health care was the right thing to do. Its spiraling costs and inefficiencies were a huge drag on the economy. The reason why the recovery has been tepid is that we are just now beginning to face the consequences of decades long trends of over use of personal credit and the loss of our manufacturing base. The middle class was partially funded by $50/hr wages paid to union workers that could not be justified on a global scale. Nobody wants to address that because there is no political hay to be made from it.
September 10th, 2010 at 8:32 am
I teach leadership training, imho, he’s pretty good, it’s just he has like all of us a few flaws.
No. 1- He says stupid shit at times he should keep his mouth shut………..Hilary you’re likeable enough…..commenting on cambridge bullshit.
No. 2-The awareness is that he will be compared to the last guy, gator had a great post, Bush was a bulldozer, aggressive unbending in certain items, no matter you’re view it does project strength and decisiveness, whereass obie is not that type of person, he needed to display it much more, so timid is a good word, there’s a dozen chicken shit things he could do in a week to show his strength, gays in military, quantanomo, etc.
No. 3-They chose the strategy of extend and pretend, whereas i’m a swede myself, okay you made a decision, now not addressing the holes in extend and pretend, it’s one thing not too prosecute the crooks it’s another thing to give crooks bonuses. U can justify non prosecution by money and time and how hard it is too prosecute rich white collar crime, yet, bonuses make u look like a total ass and lamb, and no, well it’s addressed in the new law will change that perception, it’s planted in stone.
Great Leaders imho always repeat shyte ad infinitum, where the line in the sand is and how we are doing.
W, well, at least u unequivocable knew where he stood, so u deal with it.
Two weeks for tarp two years for reform, total bullshit, imho.
It’s like the Elizabeth Warrend bs, this lady earned it, wants and is the best, she should have been given the job months ago, put ur foot down where u stand jack
September 10th, 2010 at 9:33 am
So then Wolf is essentially saying that attacking the banking crisis with every last bullet was a mistake because it wasn’t enough, and we should have let them fail like a capitalist system demands and THEN attack the ensuing economic crisis with every last bullet….
…just like 1930? ;)
September 10th, 2010 at 10:07 am
[...] Boskin’s OpEd compared the anemic current economic recovery with more vibrant ones such as Q1 1983, when Martin Feldstein was chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. He blames the lackluster recovery not on the prior crisis, but on Obama’s overly aggressive responses. Other’s, such as FT’s Martin Wolf, have called the Obama response “too feeble.” [...]
September 10th, 2010 at 11:46 am
This is American “Democracy” funded by Corporations.
Mr. Obama could not go far enough, or he surely would not be re-elected.
Wall Street helped fund his campaign, that’s how it works in America.
Wall Street, with all CEO’s free, with Government Bonus’s did pretty well.
Change how we fund elections and government can be more effective.
[ But that would be "Socialism". ]
September 10th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
What is missing from that analysis is a doze of political reality check. Anything that was going to get passed had to get support from Liberman and a few GOP senators. The reason the stimulus package was to small and had to many inefficient measures included in it, had everything to do with just that. Roosevelt did not have to deal with an opposition who would rather deliberately sink the economy (to gain seats at the next election) than allow him to pass effective measures.
The reason Bush could push through the financial legislation was first of all that the democrats never had that kind of “obstruction at all cost” attitude. Second the financial crisis had a clear immediate urgency (stock markets falling in +500 point increments and trillions of dollars of wealth lost). An economic crisis never has that kind of flashy urgency markers that can force political action out of reluctant lawmakers.
Remember your constitution. The president does not make laws he execute the will of the people as expressed by the laws passed by our representatives in congress.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
[postscript to my post above]
…except we didn’t even do that then! We are now at 90+% debt:GDP (not total), 10% deficit:GDP funding…
“When Franklin Roosevelt became president in 1933, the deficit was already running at 4.7% of GDP. It rose to a peak of 5.6% in 1934. The federal debt burden rose only slightly — from 40 to 45% prior to the outbreak of the second world war. It was the war that saw the US [and all the other combatants] embark on fiscal expansions of the sort we have seen since 2007. So what we are witnessing today has less to do with the 1930s, than with the 1940s: it is world war finance without the war.” – Niall Ferguson
September 10th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Yes and no, he was too aggressive in helping the banks and institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. Too aggressive in overriding the laws and constitutional prinicples. And not aggressive enough in standing up for the taxpayers and middle class Americans and their kids who will pay for this mess.
As an aside, WordPress deactivated my Phil’s Favorites site, and I moved it here:
http://ilene.typepad.com/ourfavorites/
I like this one much better, though I’m still importing the older articles into it.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“I’m not sure that the kind of people who could handle the depression scenario properly are the kind of people who could get elected these days”
That pretty much nails it. For congress to fix things you have to elect people who think policy is more important than politics. For the lazy idiots that are doing the electing in this country understanding issues related to policy is too much work, and beyond their ability. But Fox news have made it “easy”, handling complicated issues with simple lies. For swallowing their cr@p “we the people” get what we deserve.
September 10th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
If the American consumer is nearly 70% of the economy, I believe at least 70% of the bailout should have gone to consumers equally. If one needed to pay the rent or mortgage, good. If another had to pay down credit cards, yes. People would have spent or saved the money as they saw fit. Some young people would have paid for more schooling, other might have bought a new pair of shoes and others could go see their parents and help out. The banks would have gotten much of it in the end, but it would have been an equitable distribution into the wider economy, NOT where TBTF banks hold onto one trillion dollars and are afraid to lend.
September 10th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Obama is a highly-placed slacker (HPS) – that is someone that is totally unqualified for the responsibilities of his position and has arrived there solely through a congenial personality. He is overwhelmed and appears, much of the time, as a deer caught in the headlights .
He is — according to the Left, the middle, the Right – a failed president. It only gets worse from here.
I’m amazed how many commentators here are proponents of Big Government. I for one, do not like others telling me how to live my life. Yes, I see that I’m an anomaly, an aberration, an anachronism… in short, a throwback.
September 10th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Obama helped all of those that he intended to help, had the ability to help, and the permission to help.
Our economy is in a deflationary trend complicated by overcapacity in housing, manufacturing and services, a stalled commercial credit market for SMBs, shrinking job base, a financial industry that has by and large succeeded in its regulatory/legislative capture goals and a tax and regulatory environment that makes the US one of the most expensive places on earth to conduct business and acquire employees.
How exactly will more aggressively throwing more stimulus money at the state coffers to bail out their declining tax base fix all of the above?
September 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
What if Obama had borrowed 10 trillion dollars, would that have done the trick? 20 trillion? Let’s hear it for the all-powerful government, the answer to everything.
September 13th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
1. Solar energy farms in the southwestern deserts.
2. European-style health care for all.
3. De-salination plants to convert sea water to usable water.
4. Water reclamation projects (like the one in Orange County, CA) to convert waste water to usable water.
5. Buying 1 million Priuses and trading them for cars built before the year 2000 (with preference for cars built before 1995).
6. Building CNG and Hydrogen fueling stations to allow the next generation of vehicles to hit the road.
7. Modernizing air traffic control system.
8. Building a usable subway system in Los Angeles and a light rail system throughout southern California.
9. Buying Fox News and firing all their employees.