|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Sept 9, 2011 11:22:30 GMT -5
From what I can tell of the specifics Obama is passing the task of finding the "offsets" to the debt reduction supercommittee. I can't tell if that is all or just part of the costs but it still doesn't say a lot for "everything is paid for".
In reality I think Obama was caught between his base who wanted another $ Trillion stimulus plan (or at least a very big number) and the hugely important unaffiliated voters who have strongly decided there is too much spending goin on around there. In the end I think he tried to please both of them and in reality probably didn't please either. I was struck by how tepid the response/support has been from his normal supporters. While idiologically I am sure he wanted to open up the credit card big time I don't think he had the room to do it.
From my view of the economics he didn't address the real fundamental issues driving the uncertainties dragging down the business community. Nor do I believe short of a huge mea culpa could he have done so. Systemic liquidity is not really an issue so the Fed is largely a bystander except for bank regulation - unless they just want to pump up stocks again with a huge QEIII. Long term deficit reduction has been punted to the super committee and they are not due back until end of the year. And I am not sure short of overtly killing Obamacare, standing down the NLRB on Boeing and disavowing the EPA on carbon regulation that anyone would believe him on reducing regulatory burdens.
So he will likely get some short term stimulus (bad word I know) items such as the payroll tax break and probably some sort of hiring incentives, but that requires business owners to take a short term rebate for a long term hire which is a questionable bet at best. I don't think things like an infrastructure bank can be helpful before next year's election even if it is approved.
In the end those on the left wanted a stimulus package at least as large as the prior one was and a damn the torpedoes full speed ahead approach. I was looking for a more moderate and reasonable direct infrastructure spend with very specific near term spending reductions identified to pay for it. Plus some very specific regulation turn arounds. In the end neither side got what they wanted but the President gets to rhetorically set himself up as Harry Truman with a do nothing Congress. We will see if he gets what he wants out of that.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 9, 2011 11:35:15 GMT -5
I finally watched the debate on DVR, and let me say, that was some of the worst television I have ever seen. The candidates were predictably bad (ducks for cover). Ron Paul reaffirmed his status as a nut, with Perry not too far behind in the crazy category. He clearly forgot to take his meds. Cain - words come out of his mouth, but he doesn't say anything. Those weren't even talking points, just catch phrases. Poor Michele Bachmann. She got no face time at all. In fact, that was so clearly set up as a Romney vs Perry affair that everyone else appeared to be there just for decorations. If you weren't Perry or Romney, that was a waste of time.
But the truly egregious act was MSNBC. They were awful. They let respondents ignore the question asked, and answer whatever suited their fancy. There was virtually no follow-up to any response, no matter how whack the answer. As I said above, the focus was far too concentrated on Romney and Perry. And to trot out the Hispanic correspondent to ask the immigration question truly rubbed me the wrong way. Plus, they didn't rip any of those fascists do-do's up there a new one. That was just awful.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 9, 2011 11:49:21 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 9, 2011 12:21:53 GMT -5
But the truly egregious act was MSNBC. They were awful. I agree. Personally, I don't know how Brian Williams sleeps at night. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 9, 2011 12:54:24 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 10, 2011 7:55:46 GMT -5
I have finally figured out who President Obama reminds me of. It is my children when they were two and three years old. Each would routinely make a huge production about what they wanted, then would throw it to me and my wife to pay for their desires.
The only real difference was the setting. He used the Capitol. My kids used the kitchen.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 10, 2011 8:42:54 GMT -5
What a leader. Give me more money. My children will pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 10, 2011 11:01:05 GMT -5
I have finally figured out who President Obama reminds me of. It is my children when they were two and three years old. Each would routinely make a huge production about what they wanted, then would throw it to me and my wife to pay for their desires. The only real difference was the setting. He used the Capitol. My kids used the kitchen. Did you expect your kids to come up with a solution if your family experienced economic turmoil? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 10, 2011 11:53:47 GMT -5
What a leader. Give me more money. My children will pay for it. This is exactly the type of thing Abraham Lincoln was talking about when he founded the Republican Party. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 10, 2011 16:20:00 GMT -5
Interesting take on basically how easily influenced people are by phrasing: 538Just interesting -- most people seem to approve of most of the measures, but when you make it "philosophical" people change. It's one of my biggest problems with politics and why I don't often discuss on here -- people make practical decisions into "principal" decisions when they aren't. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 10, 2011 17:13:05 GMT -5
I have finally figured out who President Obama reminds me of. It is my children when they were two and three years old. Each would routinely make a huge production about what they wanted, then would throw it to me and my wife to pay for their desires. The only real difference was the setting. He used the Capitol. My kids used the kitchen. Did you expect your kids to come up with a solution if your family experienced economic turmoil? No. However, my kids were not elected to lead my family. The President, any President, needs to do more than say "give me what I demand now" and "oh yeah you figure out how to pay for it". I no longer question his motives. He is simply too small for the tasks at hand. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 11, 2011 16:46:47 GMT -5
I hate to hijack this thread, but why is calling it a Ponzi scheme a bad thing? I'm in my mid-thirties, and I can't believe that Social Security will be around in its current form when I'm 70, if it's still around at all. I am thus paying money into a system that's unsustainable and will break the promise it made to me. Isn't that the definition of a Ponzi scheme? I'm not counting on SS, but I don't know that I agree. But the real reason why calling SS a Ponzi is a bad thing is because you're obviously trying to score points rather than actually address an issue. Saying that you don't think it's sustainable and that it needs to be addressed gets your point across and is much more likely to advance the discussion. Saying it's a Ponzi scheme makes you feel cool but is basically part of the reason there's very little real political dialogue in this country right now. You're right, calling it a Ponzi scheme/game is a bad thing: "Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in). " -- Paul Krugman, 1996 ( www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html) |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Sept 11, 2011 19:13:21 GMT -5
I'm not a Perry fan by any stretch, but Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, plain and simple, and kudos to him for saying it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 12, 2011 12:01:22 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2011 12:06:50 GMT -5
Wait, I thought Rick Perry wanted to abolish Social Security and leave old people to die starving on the streets. You mean he wants to try and do the best he can to fix a program that's been in place 80 years? I'm so confused. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Sept 12, 2011 12:24:22 GMT -5
You mean he wants to try and do the best he can to fix a program that's been in place 80 years? I'm so confused. So he wants to continue a Ponzi Scheme that he thinks has been forced on us, and that he thinks is a "failure"? Now I'm confused. When you use the language Perry has against Social Security, you lose any claim to being the victim of the demagoguery that he's accusing Romney and the Democrats of. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 12, 2011 12:33:01 GMT -5
I couldn't care less about him calling it a Ponzi scheme.
Frankly I'm a little disappointed he backed off that in this column. If you're going to take that position, then take it, and tell Debbie Downer and Chris Matthews that they can both shove it (though Matthews seems to agree that it's a Ponzi scheme).
Don't get me wrong. It has generated some good snark on the board and I am always in favor of that.
But the real problem with that column is:
THERE'S NOTHING IN IT!!!!
Rick Perry can survive some "provocative language." What he can't keep doing is saying "we've gotta' fix it" and then offering....nothing.
Now, I'll be honest, I haven't read his book or his website, maybe he does offer some solutions in other venues. But I kinda' doubt it, or he would use this op-ed as an opportunity to tout those solutions.
Perry is a formidable candidate. But it's time for some substance on this issue, or move on to something else.
EDIT: But, as someone noted on Twitter after the debate: "don't Google 'Chilean model' while at work!!" ;D
EDIT2: I should note that the President also has no plan to fix Social Security.
EDIT3: Seriously, I am starting to get Editeded off that a I wasted a couple of minutes reading that. It reads like it was written by the People's Front of Judea. I'm offended.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 12, 2011 12:49:38 GMT -5
Pawlenty endorses Romney. This changes everything!!!!!!
(not really)
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 12, 2011 13:38:53 GMT -5
You mean he wants to try and do the best he can to fix a program that's been in place 80 years? I'm so confused. So he wants to continue a Ponzi Scheme that he thinks has been forced on us, and that he thinks is a "failure"? Now I'm confused. When you use the language Perry has against Social Security, you lose any claim to being the victim of the demagoguery that he's accusing Romney and the Democrats of. I get it. There are only two choices: keep SS going with no changes, or get rid of it completely. I mistakenly thought there might be some middle ground. Thanks for clearing that up. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 12, 2011 14:19:31 GMT -5
Barry O and class warfare--perfect together.
His Unicorn-like jobs bill will be paid for by the rich (defined by the Great O as anyone making in excess of $200,000 or $250,000 for a family).
He is simply amazing. The bar lowers and lowers for whom he deems rich. Where does it end?
My fervent wish is that it ends 1/20/13.
|
|
