loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

he didn't push through the most progressive legislation since social security in the Affordable Health Care Act?

My understanding is that the Bush Tax cuts would expire on their own accord after 10 years, so I am not sure I would be wasting political capital on that either on Day 1. As it turns out, he had to horse trade those cuts for others anyway.

Either way... I literally have no clue if Silver is right or not about the filibuster, but I would not be surprised.

He definitely pushed that through along with the stimulus plan - neither of which he can credit with doing much to turn the country around. That is why the house and senate he currently has, is the house and senate he earned.

He had a ton of political capital to bring change to the United States and to Washington and what did he do? He pushed through a stimulus bill that had been drafted before he got into office, which was filled with freebies to his party. Then he rammed healthcare reform down the countries throat while we were in the throws of the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes - I am not disputing that and most people won't. Reality is that his bill has changed nothing yet. Pre-existing conditions are still a problem costing people dearly when they submit a claim. The jury is still out on whether his legislation will ultimately help. I think it will serve as a starting point to debate since the supreme court will most likely vote it down (how can you force every single American to buy health insurance?).

I do not feel sorry for the guy. He acted like the second coming during his campaign, he had the people behind him, and he has blown it. The republicans have not done him any favors, but if he was doing such a good job, he would have kept his majority in the first place.

there is much to cut up in your argument, but I'll focus on the last sentence, I just don't have time.

IMHO there was zero answer any politician could have provided that would have passed that would address the economy by the 2009-2010 time period. You don't turn around a world economy in 12 months, and that's the underlying assumption you have made about Obama keeping his majority. Recall that those elections start about a year before they are held and there is no math to keeping a majority. As a politician, fighting against the economy in an election time period is mostly a no-win situation regardless of how popular you otherwise would be. This is certainly not to say that Obama is without any faults regarding the decisions he has made, he has stumbled.

Obama and his team and pretty much everyone around the world has underestimated the amount of stimulus we as a nation probably could have used and still need. No one in their right mind would also let USA default on our debts and yet that too almost happened. Sheer stupidity and wasted nonsense.

BTW, it looks like precedent and a majority of legal scholars are saying the Supreme Court are going to uphold the health care bill with flying colors - something like like 7-2 or 6-3 vote. If this does not happen, it will be step #2 in the sure-fire demise of our country from super-power to just another player in the world behind the likes of China over the next few decades.

No it couldn't be fixed in two years, but he didn't have to reatin and appoint people from the old boys club that got us into this mess (Summers, Bernanke, etc). He just didn't have the guts to get the right people involved and get the ball rolling, like a pansy wimp he played it safe and put his own political survival before the interests of the country. Sorry, but when it comes to addressing the economic issues, he has got no credibility and he gets no respect from me.

can't disagree with that.

Who predicted that the Economy was as bad as it was and also called for bigger surplus and also would have been able to ram through legislation?

Heath care when it was possible not too bad. Not great, but good first timid step for USA.

martin wrote:loweyecue i think his budget process is much better these days.

Who predicted that the Economy was as bad as it was and also called for bigger surplus and also would have been able to ram through legislation?

Heath care when it was possible not too bad. Not great, but good first timid step for USA.

There were a number of critical issues that the President campaigned about but didn't accomplish virtually anything on.
#1. JOBS
2. Wars - Iraq and Afghanistan - end and pull the troops out
3. Economy
4. Regulation of Wall Street and Big Business
5. Budget deficits
6. Tax reform

But it isn't just the President who should take the blame, it is Congress as well - promoting their own self-interests over any real advances or reforms. This is the message/cause from OWS, and even Sarah Palin.

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:loweyecue i think his budget process is much better these days.

Who predicted that the Economy was as bad as it was and also called for bigger surplus and also would have been able to ram through legislation?

Heath care when it was possible not too bad. Not great, but good first timid step for USA.

There were many credible economists who could have instituted measures to get the debt in control, Volker comes to mind. Many others but I'll have to look. He didn't even push for adoption of the Simpson- Bowles plan. I haven't read that but the few excerpts I have seen looked like a balanced approach.

See that's my problem with it - "timid". But yes on healthcare at least he didn't have a super majority in the senate and dumb****s were filibustering everything in sight because they were too scared to put it up for an up and down vote.

ok, I actually don't know who Volker is and what he proposed in 2009 and how he would have rammed it through the filibuster process.

didn't the Simpson- Bowles plan eliminate a lot of tax exemptions, etc and stuff like capital gains tax? That would have made it to Obama's desk?

martin wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:Loweye - I totaly agree. The corporations and wealthy have been favored to a great extent by both mainly the Republicans, but also the Democrats. Obama was "for change" but there has been no significant change since he took office.

while i agree that Obama has not lived up to all of his promises and whatnot, how the hell is he supposed to deliver change with the type of House and Senate that he has been given? They have done crap. And he cannot sign what he is not given.

The health care bill, while not perfect, is a huge step in the right direction for our country IMHO.

Obama def missed the boat on a lot with the economy in 2009, but let's be honest, he has been working uphill since day 1 harder than any of us could ever expect.

Agree mostly except about day 1. He had a mjaority in the house the first two years and didn't push anything through. Why didn't he repeal teh Bush tax cuts on people with incomes of $250K+ when he could? He completely wasted the momentum he had by trying to be bipartisan.

he didn't push through the most progressive legislation since social security in the Affordable Health Care Act?

My understanding is that the Bush Tax cuts would expire on their own accord after 10 years, so I am not sure I would be wasting political capital on that either on Day 1. As it turns out, he had to horse trade those cuts for others anyway.

Either way... I literally have no clue if Silver is right or not about the filibuster, but I would not be surprised.

He definitely pushed that through along with the stimulus plan - neither of which he can credit with doing much to turn the country around. That is why the house and senate he currently has, is the house and senate he earned.

He had a ton of political capital to bring change to the United States and to Washington and what did he do? He pushed through a stimulus bill that had been drafted before he got into office, which was filled with freebies to his party. Then he rammed healthcare reform down the countries throat while we were in the throws of the worst economic downturn since the great depression.

Do we need healthcare reform? Yes - I am not disputing that and most people won't. Reality is that his bill has changed nothing yet. Pre-existing conditions are still a problem costing people dearly when they submit a claim. The jury is still out on whether his legislation will ultimately help. I think it will serve as a starting point to debate since the supreme court will most likely vote it down (how can you force every single American to buy health insurance?).

I do not feel sorry for the guy. He acted like the second coming during his campaign, he had the people behind him, and he has blown it. The republicans have not done him any favors, but if he was doing such a good job, he would have kept his majority in the first place.

there is much to cut up in your argument, but I'll focus on the last sentence, I just don't have time.

IMHO there was zero answer any politician could have provided that would have passed that would address the economy by the 2009-2010 time period. You don't turn around a world economy in 12 months, and that's the underlying assumption you have made about Obama keeping his majority. Recall that those elections start about a year before they are held and there is no math to keeping a majority. As a politician, fighting against the economy in an election time period is mostly a no-win situation regardless of how popular you otherwise would be. This is certainly not to say that Obama is without any faults regarding the decisions he has made, he has stumbled.

Obama and his team and pretty much everyone around the world has underestimated the amount of stimulus we as a nation probably could have used and still need. No one in their right mind would also let USA default on our debts and yet that too almost happened. Sheer stupidity and wasted nonsense.

BTW, it looks like precedent and a majority of legal scholars are saying the Supreme Court are going to uphold the health care bill with flying colors - something like like 7-2 or 6-3 vote. If this does not happen, it will be step #2 in the sure-fire demise of our country from super-power to just another player in the world behind the likes of China over the next few decades.

Its not about fixing the economy in 12 months or passing magical legislation - it's about doing what needs to be done to put this country in a much better position for the future. He had a blank canvas - the economy had collapsed and he had an opportunity to hit the reset button. Instead he passed patch work legislation that has not gotten the job done. He should have passed stimulus to build the future infrastructure of the country - instead we got roadwork and healthcare.

While the republicans can shoulder plenty of the blame in the debt crisis talks, Obama is not infallible either. He played a role in the failure, you can't let him get off free on that one.

I also think this country needs health care overhaul - but what has the bill has done to help anyone? Like I said before, pre-exisiting conditions which is one of the few bright spots in the legislation, are still keeping people from getting the coverage they are paying for. Why does that not kick in until 2013 or something like that? Why not now? Could a lobbyist have slipped that in to the bill? Smells like it. I just wonder why when the country is on the brink he chose to spend his political capital on healthcare and not on something that was more important at the time.

Like many independents I voted for Obama hoping that he would live up to the change mandate that he ran on - unfortunately he has led with no backbone and no balls. He too often caves to his own party or to the republicans, and he has no voice of his own. This is not what people voted for. Unfortunately there are no better options out there. It reminds me of Bush vs. Kerry.

OasisBU wrote:Its not about fixing the economy in 12 months or passing magical legislation - it's about doing what needs to be done to put this country in a much better position for the future. He had a blank canvas - the economy had collapsed and he had an opportunity to hit the reset button. Instead he passed patch work legislation that has not gotten the job done. He should have passed stimulus to build the future infrastructure of the country - instead we got roadwork and healthcare.

While the republicans can shoulder plenty of the blame in the debt crisis talks, Obama is not infallible either. He played a role in the failure, you can't let him get off free on that one.

I also think this country needs health care overhaul - but what has the bill has done to help anyone? Like I said before, pre-exisiting conditions which is one of the few bright spots in the legislation, are still keeping people from getting the coverage they are paying for. Why does that not kick in until 2013 or something like that? Why not now? Could a lobbyist have slipped that in to the bill? Smells like it. I just wonder why when the country is on the brink he chose to spend his political capital on healthcare and not on something that was more important at the time.

Like many independents I voted for Obama hoping that he would live up to the change mandate that he ran on - unfortunately he has led with no backbone and no balls. He too often caves to his own party or to the republicans, and he has no voice of his own. This is not what people voted for. Unfortunately there are no better options out there. It reminds me of Bush vs. Kerry.

What blank canvas did Obama have? I vehemently disagree with it. He was voted IN on a wave of voter support, especially in the grassroots area, but getting legislation passed is an entirely different canvas. His appointments have been the most filibustered and blocked in the history of Presidents, so it goes very much against what you are claiming to be true. Same with filibusters in general towards any type of legislation. Look at the small jobs bills that have been introduced: 70% of Americans want them, yet they don't get past Republican filibuster.

Voter support does NOT mean Obama had a blank check, see both the stimulus process and Heathcare Act as evidence of this. Your rhetoric does not meet reality.

And if he did have a blank canvas, why haven't Elizabeth Warren and Goodwin Lui been confirmed?

Please tell me what Obama's role within the failure of the debt crisis talks? The Tea Party and in larger part the Republican's 1) created this problem 2) Refused to move on any long-term solution and then 3) put in motion the idea of the Super Failure Committee. What part of that can Obama be held accountable for and what do you propose he could or should have done that would meet your idea of a good solution to a problem that did not need to exist?

When you pass legislation that overhauls something the size of healthcare, you can't do that overnight. That's just reality of life; that's the reason for 2013.

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:I'm paying attention to a lot. I'm knocking the President because he deserves part of the blame, and he became the subject of the replies. But in every one of my replies, I knock the Republicans in a shorter yet harsher statement. Again, the Republicans are patriotic to their own party and self-interests first, instead of being patriotic to the country which they swore an oath to when they took office. They want and work towards failure of Obama's programs and proposals just because they want him to look bad. But this is detrimental to the nation. All this so they can get into office in the next election. And then do what after they have brought the country down even furthur?

you are not making sense. Saying "Repeal the Bush tax cuts" as if it were just a flick of wrist is not an option for Obama, and you yourself know this because of the Republican party he is forced to deal with. And yet you still expect it to magically happen and hold Obama accountable for something he cannot do?

WHere is the reality?

They never really tried! The Dems under Obama never made it a big issue. They were scared of the Republicans PR and knuckled under. Yet, the Dems had a majority in both houses of Congress after the 2008 election, as well as the Presidency.

Another act they couldn't/didn't do anything about was re-instating the part of the Glass-Steagall act which had previously separated the Investment and Commercial Banks. Even though so many market people advised this publically.

Re: Glass Steagall act:
"Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]

The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal may have contributed to the severity of the financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing banks to become so large, complex, and intertwined that both they and their regulators failed to see the systemic risk that a failure in one part of one bank could lead to cascading failures across the global financial system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Interesting that it was 2 Democrats (Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3) ) who put this bill into law in 1933 which kept the economy in balance and growing; and it was 3 Republicans (Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). who sponsored it's repeal in 1999, which then directly led to the financial collapse in 2008.

Markji wrote:

martin wrote:

Markji wrote:I'm paying attention to a lot. I'm knocking the President because he deserves part of the blame, and he became the subject of the replies. But in every one of my replies, I knock the Republicans in a shorter yet harsher statement. Again, the Republicans are patriotic to their own party and self-interests first, instead of being patriotic to the country which they swore an oath to when they took office. They want and work towards failure of Obama's programs and proposals just because they want him to look bad. But this is detrimental to the nation. All this so they can get into office in the next election. And then do what after they have brought the country down even furthur?

you are not making sense. Saying "Repeal the Bush tax cuts" as if it were just a flick of wrist is not an option for Obama, and you yourself know this because of the Republican party he is forced to deal with. And yet you still expect it to magically happen and hold Obama accountable for something he cannot do?

WHere is the reality?

They never really tried! The Dems under Obama never made it a big issue. They were scared of the Republicans PR and knuckled under. Yet, the Dems had a majority in both houses of Congress after the 2008 election, as well as the Presidency.

Another act they couldn't/didn't do anything about was re-instating the part of the Glass-Steagall act which had previously separated the Investment and Commercial Banks. Even though so many market people advised this publically.

Re: Glass Steagall act:
"Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, named after its co-sponsors Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia).[2][3]

The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. This repeal may have contributed to the severity of the financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing banks to become so large, complex, and intertwined that both they and their regulators failed to see the systemic risk that a failure in one part of one bank could lead to cascading failures across the global financial system."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

Interesting that it was 2 Democrats (Senator Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Congressman Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3) ) who put this bill into law in 1933 which kept the economy in balance and growing; and it was 3 Republicans (Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia). who sponsored it's repeal in 1999, which then directly led to the financial collapse in 2008.

Again, let's talk reality. Obama comes into office in 2009. The economy is on very much a downward slope. He needs a stimulus. We are fighting 2 god-awful wars. Bin Laden is still alive sipping latte's laughing daily about his arch-nemesis and the most pathetic Bush of all. He has a small window of Democratic majority, but not a super-majority that is really needed in the climate of Republicans in the house and especially senate. He is spending his political capital on something that every president has failed at over the previous 50 years: universal health care that IMHO is that biggest problem our country faces over the next 10-30 years. And you want him to spend time TRYING to repeal the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire AUTOMATICALLY in 2011? If he spends any time in 2009 on it, maybe he gets it done for 2010.... 1 years worth of cuts. What's really the point? Especially in the face of everything else that is snowballing.

Question, if Obama does repeal the Bush tax cuts in time for 2010, do you realize how much money that would save the USA? Cause I think you don't.

Markji wrote:Martin, I'd like to end this discussion on Obama for 2 reasons. I think he is far superior to Bush and the present Republican leaders in Congress. I don't want to keep pointing out all of his downfalls. I'd rather look to the future and to "Change" that could take place. You haven't pick up on all of the criticism I heaped on the Repubs.

If Obama didn't bring up the Bush tax cuts before, there is still time now. A good political move too if he plays his cards right. The disparity of income levels between the top 1% and the other 99% is huge; and even bigger for the top .1% from the other 99.9%. The top .1% make most of their money on Capital gains. So if the Bush capital gains tax reduction is repealed, then the tax code becomes fairer and benefits a vast majority of the population.

This thread is about OWS movement. Let's get back on topic.

you are dinging Obama for not trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts without understanding the reality of being able to do so or understanding the impact that the repeal would actually have.

You also realize that repealing the tax cuts would RAISE the taxes on EVERYONE, right? Not just the top 1%? Fairly substantially too, all things considered. (are you in favor of raising taxes on the middle class right now? does it even make sense politically or otherwise?)

Obama has stated his position on the Bush tax cuts: he does NOT want to repeal because it would raise taxes substantially on the middle class (considering that they auto expire anyway), especially in the economic situation we are in. He favors ONLY raising taxes on people making > $250K a year. He JUST tried to pass a tax that would raise the level on only the 2nd million people make by 5% and it didn't even make it to the floor for debate, this was apart of his massive jobs bill and then again in piecemeal. FOR JOBS and he couldn't do it because of the ****head Republicans and a few cowardly Democrats.

How the **** do you propose he would do if it were a straight repeal of the Bush tax cuts? He would fall on his face... and then what?

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:loweyecue i think his budget process is much better these days.

Who predicted that the Economy was as bad as it was and also called for bigger surplus and also would have been able to ram through legislation?

Heath care when it was possible not too bad. Not great, but good first timid step for USA.

There were many credible economists who could have instituted measures to get the debt in control, Volker comes to mind. Many others but I'll have to look. He didn't even push for adoption of the Simpson- Bowles plan. I haven't read that but the few excerpts I have seen looked like a balanced approach.

See that's my problem with it - "timid". But yes on healthcare at least he didn't have a super majority in the senate and dumb****s were filibustering everything in sight because they were too scared to put it up for an up and down vote.

ok, I actually don't know who Volker is and what he proposed in 2009 and how he would have rammed it through the filibuster process.

didn't the Simpson- Bowles plan eliminate a lot of tax exemptions, etc and stuff like capital gains tax? That would have made it to Obama's desk?

Not suggesting Volker by himsself would fix anything. I wanted Obama to appoint the right people so the combined effect would be positive on the economy and jobs. He didn't need republican support for these appointments- Bernanke, Summers and Geitner those are on him.

Yes Simpson Bowles cuts bunch of stuff and I blame him for not pushing it. As President he should have addressed the people and made them understand exactly how bad the problem is and why the cuts are needed. Instead he went for grade school sob stories of soccer moms and factory workers. Waiting for legislation to come to your desk is lame, you need to fight for what you believe in. He did NOTHING at all to push Simpson Boles, instead he waited for the republicans to manufacture a crisis and then came out with a kne jerk reaction. He had to try to work with Boehmer to stop ratingdowngrade why didn't he treat Simpson Bomled with that urgency?

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

martin wrote:loweyecue i think his budget process is much better these days.

Who predicted that the Economy was as bad as it was and also called for bigger surplus and also would have been able to ram through legislation?

Heath care when it was possible not too bad. Not great, but good first timid step for USA.

There were many credible economists who could have instituted measures to get the debt in control, Volker comes to mind. Many others but I'll have to look. He didn't even push for adoption of the Simpson- Bowles plan. I haven't read that but the few excerpts I have seen looked like a balanced approach.

See that's my problem with it - "timid". But yes on healthcare at least he didn't have a super majority in the senate and dumb****s were filibustering everything in sight because they were too scared to put it up for an up and down vote.

ok, I actually don't know who Volker is and what he proposed in 2009 and how he would have rammed it through the filibuster process.

didn't the Simpson- Bowles plan eliminate a lot of tax exemptions, etc and stuff like capital gains tax? That would have made it to Obama's desk?

Not suggesting Volker by himsself would fix anything. I wanted Obama to appoint the right people so the combined effect would be positive on the economy and jobs. He didn't need republican support for these appointments- Bernanke, Summers and Geitner those are on him.

Yes Simpson Bowles cuts bunch of stuff and I blame him for not pushing it. As President he should have addressed the people and made them understand exactly how bad the problem is and why the cuts are needed. Instead he went for grade school sob stories of soccer moms and factory workers. Waiting for legislation to come to your desk is lame, you need to fight for what you believe in. He did NOTHING at all to push Simpson Boles, instead he waited for the republicans to manufacture a crisis and then came out with a kne jerk reaction. He had to try to work with Boehmer to stop ratingdowngrade why didn't he treat Simpson Bomled with that urgency?

Simpson Bowles needed 14 members to vote yes to move ahead with a recommendation and didn't get it. That was not Obama's fault. The committee couldn't come to an agreement.

Obama tried for grand bargain with Boehmer after that, and it was my understanding that it was based on Simpson Bowles.

It is dumb to think that Obama or any President can change the way the things are moving in economy.
Same goes to the Congress, Feds, or whatever.
There are Market forces which are moving along and it is not in power of any man or organization to change their course.
Obviously it is possible to smother the angles and lessen the blows. But if we will continue to ignore and push back we will be crashed.
Cyclical overproduction crisis started in 1999 was the biggest in the history of capitalism and attempts to cover it up using mountains of debt made it much worth.
Tens of millions of overproduced houses, cars, and billions of overproduced goods will need to be absorbed or destroyed for things get back to normal.
And this will take time and pain.