Obama's strategy is obvious

[RobinFinderson]

First off, why did banks give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay the loans back?

You're right about Bush, but isn't Obama telling us that we have to spend our way out of this recession too?

On a side note, how many people took that first stimulus check and bought something and how many used it to help pay off existing debt? I'd be curious to know.

Banks gave loans to people who couldn't afford to pay the loans back because they were confident that they could bundle these loans into mortgage securities with AAA ratings and sell them before they could get stuck with the consequences. Who gave these mortgage securities AAA ratings? That is the real question, and those folks are the ones whose heads should roll.

Of course we need to spend our way out of this recession. But having the government orchestrate massive infrastructure projects is a different thing than having consumers max out their credit cards.

[il Padrino Ute]

If Obama wants us to spend our way out of the recession, I'd rather he give me more disposable income by lowering my taxes. Then I'll decide whether I want to spend that money.

[Hallelujah]

If Obama wants us to spend our way out of the recession, I'd rather he give me more disposable income by lowering my taxes. Then I'll decide whether I want to spend that money.

What did Bush do to give us the previous deficit and how many Dems voted against his ideas? And those that did, how many Dems actually wanted him to spend more?

[RobinFinderson]

What did Bush do to give us the previous deficit and how many Dems voted against his ideas? And those that did, how many Dems actually wanted him to spend more?

He spent a pile of money on tax cuts for the wealthy.

[myboynoah]

He spent a pile of money on tax cuts for the wealthy.

He needs to give them some more money to buy those RVs being produced in Elkhart.

[venkman]

He spent a pile of money on tax cuts for the wealthy.

Liberal mindset Exhibit A.

[RobinFinderson]

Liberal mindset Exhibit A.

Cutting taxes when your expenses exceed your income is a form of spending, no matter what you say.

Edit: It isn't spending, it is BORROWING. Same difference.

[tooblue]

First, it would be foolish not to look at our situation compared to the economic collapse of Asian markets. That is the nearest precedent we have to anything of this scale.

Second, why didn't Bush tell people to stop buying houses they would not be able to afford? At a time when consumer debt was at a record high, Bush asked the nation to go shopping to help float the economy. Maybe having an adult in charge of the country, someone willing to say the obvious things, is more necessary than you would think.

Third, IPU, your point isn't a point at all. It is summary judgment that reflects your belief with no supporting evidence.

The press conference gives Americans a better sense of Obama's style of leadership. From the way he is respectful of the media, treating them as professionals (no nicknames), to the way he explains issues, states that he isn't ready to answer questions yet rather than obfuscate (demonstrated in the question about fallen soldiers), and his focus on persusasion -- these are all demonstrations of a style of leadership that I find very refreshing. This is going to be a hard year, he says. I appreciate the honesty.

The strangest moment was when he had to deal with Biden opening is big stupid mouth again and trying to pin a percent-chance of failure on the plans. I'm not sure Obama was entirely honest when he said that he wasn't sure what Biden was talking about, but I am quickly beginning to thing that Clinton would have been a better pick than Biden.

News Flash -- this just in: GW Bush is no longer president!

[tooblue]

First, it would be foolish not to look at our situation compared to the economic collapse of Asian markets. That is the nearest precedent we have to anything of this scale.

Second, why didn't Bush tell people to stop buying houses they would not be able to afford? At a time when consumer debt was at a record high, Bush asked the nation to go shopping to help float the economy. Maybe having an adult in charge of the country, someone willing to say the obvious things, is more necessary than you would think.

Third, IPU, your point isn't a point at all. It is summary judgment that reflects your belief with no supporting evidence.

The press conference gives Americans a better sense of Obama's style of leadership. From the way he is respectful of the media, treating them as professionals (no nicknames), to the way he explains issues, states that he isn't ready to answer questions yet rather than obfuscate (demonstrated in the question about fallen soldiers), and his focus on persusasion -- these are all demonstrations of a style of leadership that I find very refreshing. This is going to be a hard year, he says. I appreciate the honesty.

The strangest moment was when he had to deal with Biden opening is big stupid mouth again and trying to pin a percent-chance of failure on the plans. I'm not sure Obama was entirely honest when he said that he wasn't sure what Biden was talking about, but I am quickly beginning to thing that Clinton would have been a better pick than Biden.

News Flash: Why didn't EVERY president since 1938 tell people to stop buy houses they would not be able to afford?

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

[tooblue]

First, it would be foolish not to look at our situation compared to the economic collapse of Asian markets. That is the nearest precedent we have to anything of this scale.

Second, why didn't Bush tell people to stop buying houses they would not be able to afford? At a time when consumer debt was at a record high, Bush asked the nation to go shopping to help float the economy. Maybe having an adult in charge of the country, someone willing to say the obvious things, is more necessary than you would think.

Third, IPU, your point isn't a point at all. It is summary judgment that reflects your belief with no supporting evidence.

The press conference gives Americans a better sense of Obama's style of leadership. From the way he is respectful of the media, treating them as professionals (no nicknames), to the way he explains issues, states that he isn't ready to answer questions yet rather than obfuscate (demonstrated in the question about fallen soldiers), and his focus on persusasion -- these are all demonstrations of a style of leadership that I find very refreshing. This is going to be a hard year, he says. I appreciate the honesty.

The strangest moment was when he had to deal with Biden opening is big stupid mouth again and trying to pin a percent-chance of failure on the plans. I'm not sure Obama was entirely honest when he said that he wasn't sure what Biden was talking about, but I am quickly beginning to thing that Clinton would have been a better pick than Biden.

In the end, say economists, it was not public works but an expensive cleanup of the debt-ridden banking system, combined with growing exports to China and the United States, that brought a close to Japan’s Lost Decade. This has led many to conclude that spending did little more than sink Japan deeply into debt, leaving an enormous tax burden for future generations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/wo...prod=permalink

[RobinFinderson]

TooBlue,

Responding to your points:

First, about looking to the Asian markets collapse -- I mentioned them because MBN was arguing that this was a waste of time. Of course it is also a good idea to look at our own Great Depression, which would suggest that improving manufacturing and fixing infrastructure are a couple of arrows in our quiver. The Congress is looking to clean up banking. So we seem to be taking lessons from more than one place, which I think is good.

Second, "Bush isn't president," seriously? That is your first point? Don't let that knee hit you in the face when it jerks around like that. During the last eight years the 'obvious' was not so 'obvious.' The folks who bought these expensive houses with the exotic mortgages would say things like, "I don't have to pay the mortgage, I just have to pay 'interest only' for a few years. I don't plan on living here for more than three years, so I will just sell before the rates readjust and I will leave with all of that equity in my pocket." In other words the "Obvious" was not "Obvious" to a lot of people.

Third, style points (and I know you are an artist, so I'm looking out for you here,) consolidate your points a bit better. This thread already gives the impression that it is where the crazy people are, so we don't need your style to give the haters any ammunition.

[myboynoah]

First, about looking to the Asian markets collapse -- I mentioned them because MBN was arguing that this was a waste of time. Of course it is also a good idea to look at our own Great Depression, which would suggest that improving manufacturing and fixing infrastructure are a couple of arrows in our quiver. The Congress looking to clean up banking. So we seem to be taking lessons from more than one place, which I think is good.

I said it was a bad analogy, and in fact, speaks against pouring money into public works as a good way to stimulate an economy. The waste is a waste of taxpayer dollars when money is spent on projects that are not needed or do not produce long term benefits. The Shreivport waterpark is an excellent example. My last year in Japan (2001-2002) much discussion surrounded a huge indoor waterpark built out in the countryside as part of their stimulus plan. No one was coming and it had become a financial burden. They were planning to close it and tear it down.

Follow TB's link for some enlightenment.

[RobinFinderson]

I said it was a bad analogy, and in fact, speaks against pouring money into public works as a good way to stimulate an economy. The waste is a waste of taxpayer dollars when money is spent on projects that are not needed or do not produce long term benefits. The Shreivport waterpark is an excellent example. My last year in Japan (2001-2002) much discussion surrounded a huge indoor waterpark built out in the countryside as part of their stimulus plan. No one was coming and it had become a financial burden. They were planning to close it and tear it down.

Follow TB's link for some enlightenment.

I'm not going to call the typical lard, which comes from both D's and R's in abundance, "Infrastructure," even if the politicians are calling it that. Infrastructure is basic structure -- roads, highways, bridges, levees, power grids, dams, etc. Just because folks are pursuing business as usual and cloaking it in the term 'infrastructure' does not make it so. I agree with you that a waterpark in Shreivport looks bad, and I am with you in being pissed off at pork. Unfortunately we still haven't left the era of 'pork' behind us yet. But you might find hope in the fact that plenty of liberals hate pork just as much as conservatives.

[tooblue]

TooBlue,

Responding to your points:

First, about looking to the Asian markets collapse -- I mentioned them because MBN was arguing that this was a waste of time. Of course it is also a good idea to look at our own Great Depression, which would suggest that improving manufacturing and fixing infrastructure are a couple of arrows in our quiver. The Congress is looking to clean up banking. So we seem to be taking lessons from more than one place, which I think is good.

Second, "Bush isn't president," seriously? That is your first point? Don't let that knee hit you in the face when it jerks around like that. During the last eight years the 'obvious' was not so 'obvious.' The folks who bought these expensive houses with the exotic mortgages would say things like, "I don't have to pay the mortgage, I just have to pay 'interest only' for a few years. I don't plan on living here for more than three years, so I will just sell before the rates readjust and I will leave with all of that equity in my pocket." In other words the "Obvious" was not "Obvious" to a lot of people.

Third, style points (and I know you are an artist, so I'm looking out for you here,) consolidate your points a bit better. This thread already gives the impression that it is where the crazy people are, so we don't need your style to give the haters any ammunition.

One: MBN is not arguing it was a waste of time, but then he has answered for himself already ... see his posts

Two: it seems clear that the most common retort of liberally minded individuals will be some sort of reference to Bush. It's cowardly or a dodge and only serves to underscore the fact that the position being espoused is untenable.

[youtube]HECI4QK_mXA[/youtube]

Of course if you would like to go down that road, what exactly did Bill Clinton do during his presidency to warn people against buying homes more expensive than they could afford? See how ridiculous this is? It is interesting that you have ignored the fact that I provided some history on organizations such as Fanny Mae … perhaps because some context underscores the idiocy of bringing up Bush!

Three: I am already too far down the rabbit hole to worry about style ... besides as an artist I am entrusted with the time-honored responsibility of creating style. So, you looking out for me is unnecessary and in fact may well be detrimental to the masses

[Hallelujah]

He spent a pile of money on tax cuts for the wealthy.

That's what gave us the mortgage crisis?...........which every economist says is causing the crisis today.

Are you saying that revenue went down during the tax cut years? BTW, did you know that EVERYONE got a tax cut. If taxes are reduced 10%, those paying more will get more back. I think I learned that in math somewhere.

Or is that unfair? You believe those who are successful should pay more? Because?