The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[hblask 1]

Like many of us, he got sucked into the buy now, pay later mindset? I know a great number of individuals who think that say the furniture companies are giving them a deal by not making them pay for 12 months for example. But what they don't realize is that that interest is still charged and accumulating all the time. And if they don't pay it off in the 12 months then they get hit with all 12 months worth of interest.

So your vote for Naked_Cowboy's question is for #1?

[Sheiky 0]

that statement by him fills me completely with rage. as soon as he gets his budget and stimulus passed he suddenly has an epiphone of how basic economics works? I mean, what are the options here? 1. He actually didn't understand basic economics and pushed out trillions in new defecit spending having no idea what he was doing to the country. 2. He did understand the effect of the overwhelming deficit spending on an economy and made up a bunch of horribly reasoned lies to sell it to people because that's what he wanted to do anyway, despite knowing it was harmful long term.3. He didn't understand / believe / whatever what every independent economist in the world is saying and still believes his economic policies are good, and is just lying about what he believes now to placate people.Is there another option i'm not seeing here that doesn't look either unbelievably inept or sinister on the part of the most powerful man in the world?Anyone?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keyneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Galbraithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Great response. You understand that keynsian economic stimulus involves spending money on things that will actually encourage economic growth, right? And not at the cost of so much debt that we hamper our ability to borrow and overwhelm the budget with interest expense.Did you just google "liberal economist"?

[hblask 1]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keyneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitzhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Galbraithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich

Why would you post a list of people that Obama now says he disagrees with to answer the question?(OK, he didn't specifically state he disagrees with those particular people, but his latest statements are the direct opposite of what those guys say.)I guess there is one more choice that NC left out:#4. Obama is saying whatever he thinks people want to hear on any given day. He has no actual values or ideas.Day 1: I will not raises taxes on anyone under $250KDay 2: Massive cigarette tax increase, with the vast majority of it paid by the poor.Day 3: I disagree with Bush, and will bring the troops backDay 4: I will follow the Bush timeline and throw in bonus troops in Afghanistan.Day 5: I will not allow the government to spy on its citizens.Day 6: Ok, the spying thing isn't so bad.Day 7: All bills will have 5 days for public review.Day 8: Except for the ones that I don't want to have to answer questions about.Day 9: No more lobbyists running Washington.Day 10: Except for the ones I likeDay 11: I will balance the budget and spend responsiblyDay 12: I will increase the federal debt by more than all previous presidents combined.Day 13: The current level of deficit spending is not sustainable.Day 14: I will release more photos of abuseDay 15: Just kidding on those photos of abuse.Day 16: I will stop the secret military tribunalsDay 17: I know, let's allow secret military tribunals.Day 18: I will make the federal government transparent.Day 19: Presidential secrecy is in our national interest..... to be continued....I think you could take the crazy homeless guy shouting on the street corner and get more coherent picture.

[Sheiky 0]

Great response. You understand that keynsian economic stimulus involves spending money on things that will actually encourage economic growth, right? And not at the cost of so much debt that we hamper our ability to borrow and overwhelm the budget with interest expense.Did you just google "liberal economist"?

You said that every single independent economists is against Barack Obama's spending.I proved you wrong.

[Sheiky 0]

Why would you post a list of people that Obama now says he disagrees with to answer the question?

because i was responding to Cowboy not Barack Obama?

[hblask 1]

You said that every single independent economists is against Barack Obama's spending.I proved you wrong.

He was talking about real economists, not the guys in your list.

[Sheiky 0]

He was talking about real economists, not the guys in your list.

Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone who disagrees with you isn't qualified to talk on whatever subject you're talking about.

[hblask 1]

Oh sorry, I forgot that everyone who disagrees with you isn't qualified to talk on whatever subject you're talking about.

Oh, that's not true at all. I have wonderful discussions on here all the time with people I disagree with. But no, the opinions of hacks and flacks don't really matter much to me, not matter what titles they've managed to attach to their name.Moving up in the world is easy; doing it with integrity and intelligence takes a bit more work.

[Sheiky 0]

I don't profess to know the entire biographies of those I linked to, so could you expand on how they are integrity lacking hacks?

[CaneBrain 95]

-1 for demshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...ror-trials.html

+1000 as far as I am concerned. It is not feasible to try all these guys in Federal court.....so he is keeping the tribunals but changing them so the accused actually have, y'know, rights and stuff.This is called being pragmatic.

[CaneBrain 95]

The more I read the more I think we are screwed for a long time. I tend to believe our economy is pretty robust, so that stupid politicians can't really do lasting damage, but when Democrats start saying "you know, we may be spending too much", it's time to worry. I've read several scholarly articles lately that basically say the absolute *best* case right now is extremely slow, below-average growth for the next 5 years, and worst case is the bottom drops out. Best case happens if the government starts to reel in spending and deficits, and starts to remove obstacles to productivity, and the federal reserve withdraws the inflationary money bubble it created at exactly the right speed.If the Democrats try to take over 1/7 of the economy with a misguided health care reform, we're pretty much done. It'll be time to start stocking up on canned food and ammunition.If the carbon taxes are implemented, recovery will be very difficult.My gut feeling is that Obama has about 6 months to completely turn his administration around, or he'll leave a legacy as grim as FDR's lost decade.

ah my favorite Henry.....the one perched over the deep end of the intellectual pool.You do realize that FDR's legacy is as one of our greatest presidents? That they put him on Mt. Rushmore? You may think he was the worst President (which is wrong with people like Franklin Pierce and Andrew Johnson and others to choose from) but FDR's legacy to the majority of Americans is that of a great, courageous leader. That is his legacy. Obviously, you think that legacy is undeserved.....but, bear in mind, most historians, scholars and average Americans dont agree.And it is also a bit late to stock up on ammo. It's mostly gone.And for every scholarly article that says we are screwed, I am sure Sheiky or VB would post one that says we are back on track. The fact that you dismiss every economist Sheiky produced as "hacks" makes you look pretty close-minded......especially considering the people you think are right about economic issues thought everything was going great from 2002-2008. And they were dead wrong. Why should we assume they know everything now?

[Sal Paradise 57]

I mean even if they were the greatest economists in the world, do you guys not see that he has done an absolute 180 in his position? lets spend trillions of dollars. oh! we shouldn't have spent trillions of dollars! I mean it's like a priest telling an alter boy to wait till he's married before he has sex right after he fucks him in the ass (allusion to america's situation absolutely intended).

[Sheiky 0]

I mean even if they were the greatest economists in the world, do you guys not see that he has done an absolute 180 in his position? lets spend trillions of dollars. oh! we shouldn't have spent trillions of dollars! I mean it's like a priest telling an alter boy to wait till he's married before he has sex right after he fucks him in the ass (allusion to america's situation absolutely intended).

I don't believe i've commented anywhere in the past 3 pages on Obama's action or even expressed support for the stimulus package(I don't remember doing that on this forum even)But yeah, I did find that ironic.

[Sal Paradise 57]

But yeah, I did find that ironic.

yeah that's all I'm saying. I mean, either way, whatever you believed, he's against it and he's for it. that's what is just ridiculous to me.

[CaneBrain 95]

yeah that's all I'm saying. I mean, either way, whatever you believed, he's against it and he's for it. that's what is just ridiculous to me.

I have come out and said I dont like Obama's economic policies (though I dont share the gloom and doom of the conservatives on this forum)......but if you wanted to spin this in a good way, you would say that Obama felt the stimulus and budget were "shots in the arm" that the economy had to have to save the economy from cratering. Now that we have avoided cratering, we should begin to truly exercise fiscal restraint and stop borrowing like crazy.I truly hope that is his thought process.

[hblask 1]

You do realize that FDR's legacy is as one of our greatest presidents? That they put him on Mt. Rushmore?

I would agree that both of these statements are equally factual.

[hblask 1]

..especially considering the people you think are right about economic issues thought everything was going great from 2002-2008. And they were dead wrong. Why should we assume they know everything now?

The people whose opinions I respect have been writing about the moral hazards of the conditions that lead to the mortgage meltdown for over a decade. Where was Krugman? So yeah, results matter. I listen to the people who have been correct for the last several decades. Obama is listening to the people who have been wrong since Hoover.

[Balloon guy 158]

The people whose opinions I respect have been writing about the moral hazards of the conditions that lead to the mortgage meltdown for over a decade. Where was Krugman? So yeah, results matter. I listen to the people who have been correct for the last several decades. Obama is listening to the people who have been wrong since Hoover.

The vaccum guy?

[Sheiky 0]

Just throwing this out there as well- Roosevelts actions in the great depression weren't really an example of 'stimulus' spending at all. People have this idea that Obama is imitating him and that we're experiencing the second new deal, but in relative terms this stimulus package and concurrent budget deficit is in a totally different league to the real 'new deal'. Contrary to popular belief, Roosevelt's economic policies weren't an example of Keynesian economics at all. I don't suspect that'll change anyone's respective view on the success/failures of his presidency, but it's a big misnoma that Obama stimulus = New deal = bad. (Not saying that the current stimulus is good or bad, just that linking it to the new deal isn't very accurate at all)

[hblask 1]

but FDR's legacy to the majority of Americans is that of a great, courageous leader.

Do you mean the majority of Americans that think all species were created in their current form? Those people?The truth is, so few people could list 3 things that FDR did that statements regarding him such as "a majority believe" are totally meaningless.People will say "he brought us out of the depression". That is provably false, as study after study has shown. But many people confuse correlation with causation that it's easy to see why, but do you really think that it's just a coincidence that the worst economic times in history coincided with his tenure?The only reason people think he is good is because they heard somewhere that he saved us from Nazis and Hoover. Pressed for details, few could go beyond that, and most of the people who can realize how terrible he was.

[CaneBrain 95]

The people whose opinions I respect have been writing about the moral hazards of the conditions that lead to the mortgage meltdown for over a decade. Where was Krugman? So yeah, results matter. I listen to the people who have been correct for the last several decades. Obama is listening to the people who have been wrong since Hoover.

fair enough.

[Sal Paradise 57]

fair enough.

pussy.

[hblask 1]

Roosevelts actions in the great depression weren't really an example of 'stimulus' spending at all. People have this idea that Obama is imitating him and that we're experiencing the second new deal, but in relative terms this stimulus package and concurrent budget deficit is in a totally different league to the real 'new deal'. Contrary to popular belief, Roosevelt's economic policies weren't an example of Keynesian economics at all. I don't suspect that'll change anyone's respective view on the success/failures of his presidency, but it's a big misnoma that Obama stimulus = New deal = bad. (Not saying that the current stimulus is good or bad, just that linking it to the new deal isn't very accurate at all)

I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is. From their own comments (Obama's and Roosevelt's), their theory is the same: if people won't spend their money, we'll just make the government do it for them, and that will rev up the economy. Roosevelt and his treasury secretary both regretted their actions after 7 years. I wonder how long it will take Obama.

[Sheiky 0]

I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is. From their own comments (Obama's and Roosevelt's), their theory is the same: if people won't spend their money, we'll just make the government do it for them, and that will rev up the economy. Roosevelt and his treasury secretary both regretted their actions after 7 years. I wonder how long it will take Obama.

Do you know that Keynes actually wrote an open letter to Roosevelt complaining that he wasn't doing enough?It's not just a simple theoretical matter as you put it there. Whatever Roosevelts thinking, the increase in public spending during his tenure was largely met by increases in tax revenue, meaning the budget deficit wasn't nearly as big as people think it was. Federal spending came no where close to replacing the incredible fall in GDP during the depression. Reagan, Bush and Ford all ran much bigger budget deficits during there time in office (fiscal conservatives don't ya know) and this was at a time of economic prosperity.Individually, the programs encompassed in the new deal again are subject to widely distorted views. The most famous ones (FERA, WPA) didn't run as most people assume they did (they were more social insurance schemes with work requirements) and because of Roosevelt's reluctance to increase the budget deficit they didn't provide a massive increase in overall demand. When we read history books we get the impression that he bumped out the credit card and went nuts, when that isn't really the case at all. As i've mentioned, modern presidents have ran much bigger deficits (operated in a far more Keynsiaist fashion than roosevelt) since the second world war, yet because that was the norm we don't have this grand narrative of great increases in public spending and budget deficits. He may have messed up the economy, but if he did it wasn't really because he was borrowing excessive amounts of money to fill a demand gap like Obama is doing now. His failures are more in the nature of the policies and reasoning behind the reforms he did pass (such as overly inflating wages) and not because of their overall magnitude.