The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So you are saying that if John Kerry ran against Mitt Romney, we would have the first ever 0-0 tie?

So are you saying neither would be smart enough to vote for themselves?

[JPhillips]

Some of those chain emails have a bigger audience than cable news shows. They can be very influential. A number of my more conservative friends have posted that list or a link to that list.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Some of those chain emails have a bigger audience than cable news shows. They can be very influential. A number of my more conservative friends have posted that list or a link to that list.

Please pass on to your conservative friends that I believe them to be gullible idiots then. If there's a "fact" list in a political e-mail that comes to you, it's a pretty good bet that it's full of a whole lot of hot air and little else.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Glad to see we're now OK with funding private businesses if they have a good enough lobby in D.C.

This came up a few pages ago, but it definitely seems like we're in the middle of one those party paradigm shifts that seems to happen overnight, and its hard to pin down the origin of.

It kind of started during the Bush administration, when Republicans were all about big government, and Democrats started talking more and more about individual civil liberties.

Now, we have Democrats bragging about the success of trickle-down economics, and Republicans saying we need to help peeople directly instead of corporations.

I think such a shift can happen in times like this, where people are more loyal to their party then to their ideologies.

[JPhillips]

It's an effective email because it has the veneer of intellectual authority and reinforces the beliefs of those predisposed to be against healthcare reform. I even countered a few of the points with one friend whose response was that the email must be right because legal language is hard for ordinary people to understand. The unfortunate thing is that many of the people who believe this email can't be persuaded that it's full of lies and distortions.

[ISiddiqui]

I think it's just the difference that being in power vs being out of power.

Regardless, making money on loans ain't that bad. After all, it wasn't like the government just gave money away on this (as it did on the stimulus).

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think it's just the difference that being in power vs being out of power.

Regardless, making money on loans ain't that bad. After all, it wasn't like the government just gave money away on this (as it did on the stimulus).

I can't imagine a more liberal slant on the news than that article. Sure, it's great that there's been a profit generated from some of the banks, but any business venture could claim a "profit" by isolating the most successful parts of the business.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

This came up a few pages ago, but it definitely seems like we're in the middle of one those party paradigm shifts that seems to happen overnight, and its hard to pin down the origin of.

It kind of started during the Bush administration, when Republicans were all about big government, and Democrats started talking more and more about individual civil liberties.

Now, we have Democrats bragging about the success of trickle-down economics, and Republicans saying we need to help peeople directly instead of corporations.

I think such a shift can happen in times like this, where people are more loyal to their party then to their ideologies.

nope. Think TARP saved our country from financial ruin but feel free to read into whatever you want. I said, CLEARLY, in the recession thread that no matter the outcome both sides will be able to claim victory on this and MBBF has already laid that groundwork.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

nope. Think TARP saved our country from financial ruin but feel free to read into whatever you want.

It helped our country get out this recession, but will have some share of the blame for the next one that will start in about 18 months - 2 years (or a little longer).

It's not rocket science to forsee that taking nothing and turning it into billions is going to help the country in the short term.

[Flasch186]

I dont think that we were headed for this recession without it. As I stated in the other thread, me, Buffet, Bernanke, Paulson, and many many other people much much much smarter than me, think we were headed for much worse.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

me (Flasch), Buffet, Bernanke, Paulson, and many many other people much much much smarter than me, think we were headed for much worse.

Henceforth known as the economic Mount Rushmore.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont think that we were headed for this recession without it. As I stated in the other thread, me, Buffet, Bernanke, Paulson, and many many other people much much much smarter than me, think we were headed for much worse.

When the hyperinflation comes will you and your circle of experts agree maybe the bailout and the continues expansion of the money supply wasn't suchs great ideas?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What was the alternative again? Letting more banks fail and dragging the rest of the economy down with it? The response to letting Lehman go was not very good.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by panerd

When the hyperinflation comes will you and your circle of experts agree maybe the bailout and the continues expansion of the money supply wasn't suchs great ideas?

ABSO-frickin-LUTELY.

I do NOT think were headed for hyperinflation by any means.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont think that we were headed for this recession without it. As I stated in the other thread, me, Buffet, Bernanke, Paulson, and many many other people much much much smarter than me, think we were headed for much worse.

Like I said, not rocket science. It's hard to imagine the economy getting worse in the short term by printing billions and pumping it into the economy.

If that's all it takes - why stop? Why not have a $100 trillion stimulus package right now?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

When the hyperinflation comes will you and your circle of experts agree maybe the bailout and the continues expansion of the money supply wasn't suchs great ideas?

Is the hyperinflation similar to the crystal entity?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

I can't imagine a more liberal slant on the news than that article. Sure, it's great that there's been a profit generated from some of the banks, but any business venture could claim a "profit" by isolating the most successful parts of the business.

Well, it's accounting . And why accountants are paid so much .

[flere-imsaho]

I always understood the primary purpose of TARP to be to inject liquidity into the credit system before it seized up and keeled over, taking the whole U.S. economy with it. Keeping more banks from going under was a secondary goal, and in any event that issue was clearly more handled by a) the Fed brokering takeovers with The Big Three banks and b) boosting up the FDIC to handle more bank bankruptcies.

ARRA was the stimulus plan, the plan designed to keep us from a long recession.

We need a glossary around here.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Henceforth known as the economic Mount Rushmore.

...because youve been right on so many things since you started predicting things on FOFC. I havnt checked. How's that revolution going in Iran? Did McCain or Obama win? Did the Dems win both houses of Congress? Did people start showing up with automatic weapons at the Town Halls?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

What was the alternative again? Letting more banks fail and dragging the rest of the economy down with it? The response to letting Lehman go was not very good.

After seeing the profiteering measures taken by many of the banks with their 'bailout' money, it's not nearly as clear that many of these banks would have gone under as they lead people to believe.

From a 401K perspective, I can't say I'm complaining. I'm making a killing off the fear that many of these banks put in the general public, allowing me to buy their stocks at extremely low prices. Had they not cried wolf, my retirement account wouldn't be anywhere close to what it is now.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So Bear Stearns and Lehman were legitimate fears, but everyone else was fearmongering?

I'm honestly trying to figure this stuff out, as economics is not my strong suit as it appears to be everyone else's here.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

ABSO-frickin-LUTELY.

I do NOT think were headed for hyperinflation by any means.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is the hyperinflation similar to the crystal entity?

Let's see the worst economic downturn since the great depression yet prices of goods stayed either the same or in some cases rose. Shouldn't prices go down during a recession? If you guys don't think inflation is already here and only going to get worse than keep drinking the kool aid. Name one company that runs it's books like the US government. Their accountants would be fired and probably put in prison.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, it's accounting . And why accountants are paid so much .

CEO: "So how much did we make/lose this quarter?"

Accountant: "Well, how much do you want to make/lose this quarter?"

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Let's see the worst economic downturn since the great depression yet prices of goods stayed either the same or in some cases rose. Shouldn't prices go down during a recession? If you guys don't think inflation is already here and only going to get worse than keep drinking the kool aid. Name one company that runs it's books like the US government. Their accountants would be fired and probably put in prison.

Some goods rose, some stayed the @same, and some dropped. And inflation isn't already here, or are the CPI numbers lying?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I always understood the primary purpose of TARP to be to inject liquidity into the credit system before it seized up and keeled over, taking the whole U.S. economy with it. Keeping more banks from going under was a secondary goal, and in any event that issue was clearly more handled by a) the Fed brokering takeovers with The Big Three banks and b) boosting up the FDIC to handle more bank bankruptcies.

ARRA was the stimulus plan, the plan designed to keep us from a long recession.

We need a glossary around here.

I remember the TARP people here saying that we just needed it to help bide time while the financial sector was "fixed". Which makes great sense in theory, but when does the fixing start exactly?

The stimulus plan was nothing more than printing money and buying stuff. Which I guess every government has to do to some extent, but it's a question of volume and what happens when the stimulus ends.

The reason both scared me is it didn't seem the supporters had any concept of "too much". I mean, there must be a too much, right? Why not a quadrillion dollar stimulus? Can we at least have some acknowledgement that there's some point that's too far?

[panerd]

It amazing how the government's fiscal policy and debt can even become a partisan issue. It's asstoundingly illogical yet whoever is in power seems to shrug it off like it is no big deal. It's sad that the Obama kool-aid drinkers blow it off just like the Bush ones did a couple of years ago. Something needs to change in Washington the debt is getting out of control. There's really no defending it.

(Don't get me wrong the Republicans will do nothing to fix it if they get in power. But why does that make it okay for the Democrats to do it? It's your money and your lives!)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Some goods rose, some stayed the @same, and some dropped. And inflation isn't already here, or are the CPI numbers lying?

Really? It was 1/3 of each? Come on you can do better than that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Henceforth known as the economic Mount Rushmore.

you know if you want to discount the opinion of every expert on everything and believe that nobody knows better than you then i don't know what to tell you anymore.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember the TARP people here saying that we just needed it to help bide time while the financial sector was "fixed". Which makes great sense in theory, but when does the fixing start exactly?

The stimulus plan was nothing more than printing money and buying stuff. Which I guess every government has to do to some extent, but it's a question of volume and what happens when the stimulus ends.

The reason both scared me is it didn't seem the supporters had any concept of "too much". I mean, there must be a too much, right? Why not a quadrillion dollar stimulus? Can we at least have some acknowledgement that there's some point that's too far?

I don't recall anyone arguing that there was no line that was too much. A lot of people felt the package was too small to cover enough of the lost demand and I'd say the continuing misery in unemployment numbers gives a lot of validity to that position. What number would you have been happy with and why would a lower number be better policy?

edit: I should add that another part of the problem was the volume of non-stimulative tax cuts. The total spending was less than 500 billion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

Really? It was 1/3 of each? Come on you can do better than that.

I never said it was one third of each, but you are certainly wrong to say prices went up when the picture is much more mixed. The overall CPI has been low this year.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by panerd

Let's see the worst economic downturn since the great depression yet prices of goods stayed either the same or in some cases rose. Shouldn't prices go down during a recession? If you guys don't think inflation is already here and only going to get worse than keep drinking the kool aid. Name one company that runs it's books like the US government. Their accountants would be fired and probably put in prison.

The only thing I do NOT see prices going down on is commodities and many people have differing opinions as to why that is. Otherwise, anecdotally (as mentioned in the recession thread) I am seeing deflation all over the place in the forms of smaller quantities, specials, sales, etc. May not be the traditional definition of deflation but the end results are the same.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember the TARP people here saying that we just needed it to help bide time while the financial sector was "fixed". Which makes great sense in theory, but when does the fixing start exactly?

Sadly, it never did. Again, if I recall correctly (and I may not), the point of TARP was to put liquidity into the system where liquidity had dried up due to massive uncertainty about how much these "Troubled Assets" were going to kill banks' balance sheets. The next, logical, step, would have been to identify and assess these assets and then clear the balance sheets so that we could all believe in them again (well, as much as we ever do) and the financial system would free back up.

That step was never done, but the system unfroze anyway probably because a) our attention spans are only so long and b) the government made it clear they'd not let J.P. Morgan (who never had much in troubled assets), Bank of America (ditto, until Merril Lynch and Countrywide) and Citibank go insolvent.

As I said back on Page 4:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wall Street never really figures out how much bad debt is out there, but by late 2010 there's enough faith that the "Big 3" (Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America) have cleared the bulk of the liabilities that the country starts to lift out of its 2-3 year malaise in the financial markets.

A year early, clearly.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

I remember the TARP people here saying that we just needed it to help bide time while the financial sector was "fixed". Which makes great sense in theory, but when does the fixing start exactly?

The stimulus plan was nothing more than printing money and buying stuff. Which I guess every government has to do to some extent, but it's a question of volume and what happens when the stimulus ends.

The reason both scared me is it didn't seem the supporters had any concept of "too much". I mean, there must be a too much, right? Why not a quadrillion dollar stimulus? Can we at least have some acknowledgement that there's some point that's too far?

Nope.

Iw as against sending people miniscule checks. That was silly and "too far".

Spending during the recession is important. Spending when the economy is racing is "too far". clinton had it right. Bush didnt. So far IMO Obama is doing it right in balance to what we were staring at.

FWIW, I guess, the healing has already begun Molson...theyre paying us back at a profit and finding private equity solutions. Time is on our side as was said.

The only leg still under the opponents stool IMO is if we see hyperinflation.

And Flere's right, Paulson's torpedo couldve sunk us again so he aint no saint in this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Nope.

Iw as against sending people miniscule checks. That was silly and "too far".

Spending during the recession is important. Spending when the economy is racing is "too far". clinton had it right. Bush didnt. So far IMO Obama is doing it right in balance to what we were staring at.

FWIW, I guess, the healing has already begun Molson...theyre paying us back at a profit and finding private equity solutions. Time is on our side as was said.

The only leg still under the opponents stool IMO is if we see hyperinflation.

So why not a quadrillion dollar stiumulus? We could give every American a job, reduce unemployment to 0%!

Is there ANY risk, ever?

If Democrats didn't feel the need to placate the Republicans for whatever reason, what would the stimulus have been, what would the health care plan look like, what would the national debt look like now. What does a pure, 1-party-type Democrat government look like? It's pretty scary to me. I'm just glad there's some voices around to at least encourage some appreciation of risks and possible consequences.

[Flasch186]

yes Molson. Outside of Partisan edges I dont think we've hit either side of it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yeah. I think the true death knell politically for the GOP will be if job numbers start going positive. If in 2010 Obama can go on the trail and say, "the Republicans were against the stimilus, health care reform, etc, etc. But look now, we've had x months of job growth," they are screwed. Also, if that does happen, Palin is your 2012 nominee.

the GOP werent the only opponents to the stimulus. I wasnt saying "Opponents" to the Dems. I was saying opponents to TARP.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Yeah. I think the true death knell politically for the GOP will be if job numbers start going positive. If in 2010 Obama can go on the trail and say, "the Republicans were against the stimilus, health care reform, etc, etc. But look now, we've had x months of job growth," they are screwed. Also, if that does happen, Palin is your 2012 nominee.

It's 100% guaranteed that the job numbers will improve. No recession will last forever, regardless of the approach to it.

The recession will end, and the Obama will get the credit. Then the next one will start, and whoever's in office will get the blame. Repeat.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

To a certain extant, that's true. I mean, if you do nothing (hi Hoover!), it can cause a Depression. :-)

That's also why barring scandal and/or a Guantanamo releasee bombing LAX, I'm pretty sure Obama's guaranteed a second term. But my point is more in the timing. If the recoveries in full swing by next summer, the GOP's screwed. If it hasn't kicked in until Winter of 2010, the GOP has a chance to perhaps win a seat or two in the Senate and curtail the large majorities the DNC has in the house.

It will definitely all about where the economy is 2012. I could definitely forsee a recovery, followed by a big setback around 2011-2012, in which case he'd be doomed (unless Palin was the opponent). If the economy is showing really any weakness at all next time around, a charismatic and fisscally conservative non-palin republican could definitely be a threat.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

you know if you want to discount the opinion of every expert on everything and believe that nobody knows better than you then i don't know what to tell you anymore.

Ummmmm, if you think I was discounting 3 out of the 4 of those listed, then you have another sarcasm meter malfunction. Didn't you get it repaired from the last time we had this issue?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Also, if that does happen, Palin is your 2012 nominee.

Yes, and Giuliani is a shoe-in for the GOP nominee for 2008.

Palin in 2012 is a wet dream for Democrats. It's not a reality.

[ISiddiqui]

I believe he was being sarcastic with Giuliani (at least to me, it was dripping with sarcasm)

And I think he's right. Palin '12 has as much chance as Giuliani '08 did (though Giuliani probably was much more viable).

[ISiddiqui]

I think Romney crushes Palin in your scenario. Even her big time conservative supporters, with only a few diehards, have left her in droves after she resigned as Governor of Alaska. And Romney's building up an impressive warchest.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think Romney crushes Palin in your scenario. Even her big time conservative supporters, with only a few diehards, have left her in droves after she resigned as Governor of Alaska. And Romney's building up an impressive warchest.

There's no question about that. Anyone who thinks Palin ever becomes a GOP nominee for president is just living out a Democrat fantasy. She has far too many warts to get the nomination, regardless of how much she panders to the base.

I'd put a sizable amount of my own money on Palin not being the nominee in 2012. I can't see a better bet than that one.

[ISiddiqui]

And as pointed out by some columnist (I forget who now), when people talk about how crazy conservative the GOP has gotten in the last 10 years, who do they nominate for President? Senator John McCain. Should tell you who actually holds the power in the party (ie, the money folk, not the religion folk).

[ISiddiqui]

Sorry, but Pat Buchanan was huge (comparatively) in grassroots fundraising, and we see how far that got him (a speech at the convention that may have lost the race for H.W. Bush, but just a speech nonetheless).

I agree its just a Democratic wet dream and I'd be willing to take a bet that Palin doesn't get the 2012 nomination.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

But, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the megachurches and other such meeting places of the "base." We haven't seen what Palin can do as far as grassroots fundraising. Plus, to be blunt, she can give a good political speech. I have no doubt that in a red-meat environment like a primary, especially if it's a '64/'84 scenario, she'd be able to paint Romney like a two-faced weasel in the minds of those football moms in Iowa who think Sarah's just like them. :-)

Again. Do I think it's the most probable scenario? Nope. But it's not almost impossible like you guys are saying.

It's impossible. She's illustrated far too many times that she's an absolute nutjob. She'd do that 10 times over if she were the focus rather than a running mate. Once again, Democrats give far too much credit to the religious right wing. The religious right wing likes to raise a fuss and are a reliable voting block for the GOP, but they don't hold any real power in the party.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

You mean the guy who thought he had to choose Palin to pacify the conservatives.........

Fixed. Thinking he had to pacify that voting block was the biggest mistake he made. They weren't going to vote for Obama no matter what.

[ISiddiqui]

But he won. He didn't really face all that strong challenges from Romney or Huckabee after New Hampshire. The power in the party lined up behind him because they realized the problems with Romney (the business part of the party's nominee) or Huckabee (the religious part of the party's nominee).

Its kinda like saying that Bernie Sanders has a chance to be President, its improbably, but not impossible.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Pre-Internet. Palin's already raised appx. $900,000 in 2009 for SarahPAC despite not runinng for anything yet.

Technically Romney isn't running for anything yet either. But he's got $2 million raised, add his personal wealth...

[ISiddiqui]

I seriously think you are on crack. Then again, you have demonstrated that you are a huge Dem partisan, so perhaps wishful thinking is getting the better of you.

Well, that's more because of how GOP delegates are given out versus Democratic delegate than of any great strength on McCain's part.

ie, another strike against Palin.