Obama already felt failure?

CaraFawn

I personnaly feel like Obama's projects, actions and budget for 2010 is already a failure.

I am not gonna comment on the cash injection or loans/depositis protections for banks, which we have already seen has failed miserably all over the world, banks already cheated over their own asset values to get bigger amounts of cash etc.

But Obama's war in Irak/Afghanistan budget for 2010 is 200BN.

Seriously, helping those countries out today, after the mess created by the US (As usual thanks), fair enough, but another 200BN is a non-sense and is impacting the global economy more than long term now.

This is less than the 2008-2009 budget but as we know the annual budget for the World Food Program that feed 700 million in the world each year (Well up to a few months back) is 2BN.

Many of our economical issues we had in the past couple of years were direct implication of wars and conflicts and still are...

For fcuk sake when are we going to move forward at some stage one day or what?

Overheal

I kept an eye on this after the Inauguration/Election. Before the Election, Obama swore in blood to pull out, but after getting his Top Secret Clearance, he started to phase in a different tune entirely. He let us know months ago there would be more action in Iraq before we were done.

I can only conclude something in the Intelligence Briefings and upon the Advice of the Joint Chiefs, that there is more going on in the Middle East that we the public are not entirely privy to. I helped vote him in and this is the course of action he is taking. Its a big gambit for his image, so I imagine its being done for a good reason. Im gonna give a little faith here.

limklad

I don't think he felt failure but more reality that impacts and changes plans. His predecessor let a bigger mess than he relies. It was not as easy to achieve his aims when he has to do the cleaning first.

Manic Moran

I can only conclude something in the Intelligence Briefings and upon the Advice of the Joint Chiefs, that there is more going on in the Middle East that we the public are not entirely privy to. I helped vote him in and this is the course of action he is taking.

Which is why I didn't think Obama winning would be the end of the world as we know it: If the Generals were telling him outright that a pullout from Iraq as fast as he was proposing in the campaign was a bad idea (Which they were), there was probably a reason for it. I'm sure Obama isn't stupid and that when fully briefed in on everything, he's understood the reasoning why and has scaled back his withdrawl plans.

Besides, he's already in, now. He doesn't need to pander to voters with unrealistic promises any more.

I'm certainly not about to write him off as a failure. Trying to declare success or failure at this point is simply impatience or unrealism. He's only just taken office, it's going to take him half a year to simply find his feet, let alone to allow the time for his policies to take effect. Talk to me again in Jan 2010 (Or maybe April, after I'm back from Afghanistan...) and we'll discuss his success or failure.

NTM

Manic Moran

I don't think he felt failure but more reality that impacts and changes plans. His predecessor let a bigger mess than he relies. It was not as easy to achieve his aims when he has to do the cleaning first.

Interesting how perspective can colour an interpretation.

You: Obama was right, but it's Bush's fault that his correctness cannot be applied so Obama needed to change his plan.

Me: Obama was wrong, but he's seen the reality now and is acting correctly.

Both say pretty much the same thing, but lay the 'blame' (such as it is) on opposite sides of the aisle.

NTM

Running Bing

I was personally disappointed when he didnt turn the loaves into $800 billion and then walk on the Lincoln memorial reflecting pool after his inauguration.


I think the problem is one of expectations. People need to realise that sometimes the most powerful man in the world is not that powerful.

GarretWilliams

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE51B7H820090213

But I thought O'Bama was taking the troops out. That is what all the little smug middle class irishmen were spouting around the time of the election. (why they were so interested in the election I have no idea, vanity?)

Anyway, "needs must", "the country would fall into chaos if we left". What a farce. And the little people still believe.

Pocono Joe

Spendzilla is still wreaking havoc through the streets of Washington, impervious to a public still mesmerized by every mundane "historic moment" associated with this president

Legislatures huddle together cringing and paralyzed by the enormous liberal spending spree engulfing the nation in its march to economic ruin.

Can Conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats unite to stop the slide into economic abyss and fall into socialism upon realizing they are running out of other peoples money? Stay tuned... same dingbat time same dingbat station.

(Pitchforks and torches are on sale at stopliberalshockandawe.waste/)

Oh the humanity!

zod

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Legislatures huddle together cringing and paralyzed by the enormous liberal spending spree engulfing the nation in its march to economic ruin.

1. He has already said he will try halve the deficit by the end of his term

2. He has put the wars back on the books

3. Don't forget how they got the deficit in the first place.

Pocono Joe

zod wrote: »

1. He has already said he will try halve the deficit by the end of his term.

Yeah... and I’m the king of the world.

2. He has put the wars back on the books.

And when they begin to scale down the war in Iraq, he will be able to claim he’s decreasing the budget.

3. Don't forget how they got the deficit in the first place.

So the answer is to spend 10 times as much?

Overheal

Theres a bit of a difference though between spending a trillion investing in the economy and expending a trillion on two foreign wars.

silverharp

A good blog piece by Mish

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/dear-mr-president-with-all-due-respect.html

Dear Mr. President, With All Due Respect ....


Dear Mr. President, I read your New Era $3.6 Trillion Budget Proposal. I also listened to your speech Tuesday night. You made a great campaign speech. However, the campaign is over. You won. And the reason you won is you offered hope as well as a promise of change.

With all due respect Mr. President, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke are offering the same policies as President Bush and Secretary Paulson. Those policies are to bail out banks regardless of cost to taxpayers. Mr. President, it's hard enough to overlook Geithner's tax indiscretions. Mr. President, it is harder still. if not impossible, to ignore the fact that neither Geithner nor Bernanke saw this coming. Yet amazingly they are both cock sure of the solution. Even more amazing is the fact that solution changes every day.

With all due respect Mr. President, Geithner and Bernanke are a huge part of the problem, and no part of the solution and the sooner you realize that the better off this nation will be.

With all due respect Mr. President, your budget proposal is the same big government spending as we saw under President Bush. The only difference is you promised more spending and bigger government, while President Bush promised less government and less spending and failed to deliver on either count.

With all due respect Mr. President, it is impossible to spend one's way out of a problem, when the problem is reckless spending.

With all due respect Mr. President, you and Congress want to force banks to lend when banks (by not lending) are acting responsibly for the first time in a decade. Mr, President can you please tell us who banks are supposed to lend to? Do we need any more Home Depots? Pizza Huts? Strip malls? Nail salons? Auto dealerships? What Mr. President? What? And why should banks be lending when unemployment is rising and lending risks right along with it?

With all due respect Mr. President, we were hoping your administration would not carry on the war mongering policies of your predecessor. Instead we see amazingly that you Seek $75.5 Billion More for Wars in 2009. Mr. President, do we really need another $75 billion for wars? Was there nothing in the military budget that could be cut?

With all due respect Mr. President, The United States spends more on its military budget than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined; The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending; The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. Isn't that enough Mr. President?

With all due respect Mr. President, the downfall of every great nation in history has been unsustainable military expansion. Mr. President, the US can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. You act as if we can. Mr. President, can you please tell us how we can afford this spending?

With all due respect Mr. President, Fannie Mae Reported A Fourth Quarter Loss Of $25.2 Billion. Can you please tell us where you draw the line on taxpayer bailouts of Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? AIG? Mr. President is there a line anywhere, on anything? If there is, we would appreciate knowing where it is.

With all due respect Mr. President, how can you talk about reducing the budget deficit while proposing the biggest budget in history?

With all due respect Mr. President, how is it possible to talk about reducing health care costs while proposing to increase the health care budget?

With all due respect Mr. President, you have talked about "hard choices". Can you please tell us what hard choices you have made other than to throw money at every problem? Sure a few programs have changed but Bush orchestrated the biggest Medicaid/Medicare package in history and you upped it. You upped military spending. You criticized McCain for cutting programs that amount to peanuts, and all you can find to cut out of the budget is peanuts.

With all due respect Mr. President, your "Era of New Responsibility" is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration Era of Irresponsibility. Mr. President, we hoped for more and deserved more. Yet, behind the charade of campaign messages of hope and change, we essentially see the same fiscal irresponsibility and misguided policies as before. Oh sure Mr. President, your budget priorities have shifted a bit, sadly the irresponsible spending did not.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Overheal

With all due respect Mr. President, The United States spends more on its military budget than the next 45 highest spending countries in the world combined; The United States accounts for 48 percent of the world's total military spending; The United States spends on its military 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran. Isn't that enough Mr. President?

I'd invite you to join me in a serious discussion about aliens sometime.

Pocono Joe

The other day my youngest daughter asked, "Daddy? Do all Fairy Tales begin with Once Upon A Time?" I replied, "No hunny, just last year there was a Fairy Tale that began with 'When elected I promise...'

Manic Moran

Theres a bit of a difference though between spending a trillion investing in the economy and expending a trillion on two foreign wars

Where did the trillion on the two foreign wars go?

We've just got nice new armoured Hummers. Made by AM General in Indiana.
A whole pile of M4 Carbines were just delivered to my unit, made in Hartford, Connecticut.
Ammunition is made by Alliant Lake Systems in Missouri.
Bradley upgrades are done by BAe in California.
Tank upgrades by GD in Ohio.
Predator UAVs built in California, firing Hellfire missiles built in Florida.
And, of course, my military pay cheque comes to me in California, whilst another person is hired to fill my civilian job, also bringing money into California and reducing unemployment. He tells me he's going to use the money to buy a Harley, made in Wisconsin, I believe.

Now, you may argue that the money should be going to highway workers and nurses instead of aviation engineers and machinists, but most of the money is not evaporating into thin air or leaving the borders of the country and is indeed being used to provide jobs in the US for Americans. Indeed, by law major military purchases must be made in the US.

NTM

Overheal

Conceded. But havent we handed over a lot of money to the Iraqui's for reconstruction? I know, Charlie Wilson's war, etc. I can see the merit, but out of curiosity, how much?

Sand

Rhetoric can win electoral campaigns but thats about it. He is an exceptional politician, capable of getting people to vote him based on little more than promises.

Never mind, Im sure he can learn on the job.

But Obama's war in Irak

Clearly his education policies have a long way to go....

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Conceded. But havent we handed over a lot of money to the Iraqui's for reconstruction? I know, Charlie Wilson's war, etc. I can see the merit, but out of curiosity, how much?

I have absolutely no idea. I doubt anyone outside of the bureaucracy knows. Actually, I doubt even anyone in the bureaucracy knows.

It is certainly true that a number of reconstruction contracts have gone to Iraqi companies. It is also certainly true that the majority of the rest which have gone to American companies are being used to pay Iraqi workers. Similarly the workers directly paid by the US military such as interpreters or local labourers. But how many of those Iraqi companies are purchasing or using American products?

On the other hand, Iraqi salaries aren't all that much to begin with. Just what the raw dollar value is which is entering non-American hands is difficult to estimate. Similarly, business grants have been on the order of $2,000 per business. Pennies by US standards, but enough to get the locals going again. Then again, a million here and a million there, and soon you're talking some serious money.

Still, the high-use, large-dollar-value items, like something akin to a quarter-million per HMMWV or $100,000 per Hellfire, or a Westerner's pay salary, are staying in the US. Thus, though I can't tell you exactly what proportion of war funds end up staying in the US economy, it is certainly incorrect to assume that the two trillion (or whatever) spent thus far has even in large part evaporated from the US economy. As the old adage goes, nothing is as good for an economy as a war. Or, as one geezer put it centuries ago, 'To carry out war, you need three things. Money, money and yet more money.' That money basically circulates inside the economy. If you really want to spend your way out of an economic crisis, go invade someone!

NTM

CaraFawn

Anyway accordig to his plan announced today in 18 months time US soldiers would leave Irak, with only up to 50k staff remaining in 2009 instead of 145k today.
Ence the 200 billion USD only for 2009, well covering Afghanistan too :-)

CaraFawn

silverharp wrote: »

The United States spends on its military 10.2 times more than Russia

I very seriously have doubts about this figure.
Was probably true during the cold war, certainly not the case today.
A russian soldier paid 200 USD a month is a happy soldier.
Russia certainly does not even get close to 1/10 of that the Pentagon is assigned each year.
Russia has one of the oldest park of military equipment in the world.

Edit:
Hum found this actually, pretty interresting
2009 budget for russia is 50BN, pretty descent I would say alright...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

Ok Pentagon budget for 2008 was about 500BN, so yeah ok 10%

Also soldiers got salary increases in 2007. Base soldier is getting aruond 350 euro/month apparently now. Been doubled...

Overheal

CaraFawn wrote: »

Irak,
Ence

Where? What?

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

Where? What?

Iraq is "Irak" in Turkish if that helps. The second one is obviously "hence". Back on track?

Manic Moran

CaraFawn wrote: »

Anyway accordig to his plan announced today in 18 months time US soldiers would leave Irak, with only up to 50k staff remaining in 2009 instead of 145k today.

Amazing how similar his plan is to that drawn up by the Republicans, isn't it?

But 'staff'?

We're talking soldiers, not office workers here. I'm not convinced that 'staff' is quite the right word to use.

NTM

Sand

We're talking soldiers, not office workers here. I'm not convinced that 'staff' is quite the right word to use.

Heavily armed staff. With air support. And tanks. Its all there in the fine print of his campaign pledges.

Overheal

That Predator is carrying 10 kilotons of autonomous hope and change.

Pocono Joe

Overheal wrote: »

That Predator is carrying 10 kilotons of autonomous hope and change.

Well it certainly delivers change... but not much hope.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

I kept an eye on this after the Inauguration/Election. Before the Election, Obama swore in blood to pull out, but after getting his Top Secret Clearance, he started to phase in a different tune entirely.

I thought that he promised a gradual withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in roughly 18 months time after he was sworn into office? September of 2010 would be roughly this time frame?

Manic Moran

I think it was 16 months, making it June 2010. I'm not sure if he ever made any statements as to the numbers of troops remaining, though I do seem to find myself in agreement with Pelosi et al that the impression given was more like 20,000. Still, hunting around, I am now of course bombarded with Google results from the recent announcement, it's hard to find the archives off the cuff from the election campaign. I've not found anything in which he gives an answer other than 'I'll figure out how many troops to leave in Iraq later', so I could well be suffering from just an unfounded impression. Even his 'Get the troops out by Mar08' bill he submitted in May07 was non-specific about just how many troops would be pulled out. (Good politician: Keep your options open, never get pinned down!)

Here's his position in July 08. http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/04/10111

I find it inconceivable that this is going to come to pass. I can't think of any organisation which will leave 50,000 troops around for training and 'just in case' and not have any of them be combat brigades. They may not have a primary combat role and will be off the streets unless requested, but there will be combat brigades in the country. That's the whole point of leaving soldiers!

But given how similar the Obama schedule in Iraq is to the Bush schedule in Iraq, makes you wonder. Did Obama just feed people a line to get elected, or did he honestly believe his initial intent was viable and then discover that the truth wasn't so simple after he had gotten into office?

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't think of any organisation which will leave 50,000 troops around for training and 'just in case' and not have any of them be combat brigades.

Oh Boy, a game show answer! "What is.... US troops stationed for years at South Korea's DMZ?"

**B!ue drops flash bang down the open hatch in JWM's old model tank while he takes a snooze, then she runs!**

Manic Moran

You know, we sleep on the outside of the tank? Where the big flat areas are?

The troopers at the DMZ seem to like it, as long as they're not married. One of the few places left in the Army where they still do Army stuff. You know, drills, maneuvers with the tanks, that sort of thing.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

You know, we sleep on the outside of the tank? Where the big flat areas are?

Oh, I'll keep that in mind the next time I capture your flag.

People should cut Obama a little slack. After all, he has only had a month in office to mess up, when GW had years of practice.