Obama already felt failure?

thebman

Sand wrote: »

Well, theyve got that uber military lying around....and a load of people they owe money to. Whose coming to collect again? Start making a list.

Yes and once they have finished bombing those nations who will loan to them?

Will they bomb the new countries that won't lend to them too?

Once they've run out of countries who will they borrow from and who will they trade with?

A silly counter-productive policy and anyway wars are expensive, who will loan them the money to fight this war with the countries they are indebted to?

Besides it is debatable whether America's military strength could actually take on the Chinese people. There are a billion of them. Russia didn't have the greatest military strength during WW2, they did have plenty of people to throw at the enemy though and the guns to point at them should they refuse to fight. Then you have China's allies or even America's enemies that would be willing to ally with China.

I don't think it will ever go down that route anyway. It doesn't work in anybodies favor in the short term or long term. Killing millions over some loans that only exist on a computer system because the amounts involved are so large would be silly at best IMO. Anyway we'll eventually reach a figure the computer can't handle and they'll all crash :P

Sand

Thats a very serious reply to a very non-serious fiscal policy suggestion. Posting at 2.30am in the morning usually leads to tears :pac:

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

A third reason to give solvent institutions money is because they were giving insolvent institutions money. Why should solvent institutions be penalised from obtaining government assistance to an industry just because they happened to have been better managed to that point?

So the taxpayer mortgages his/her future, and their children's future with historic federal deficits by uniformly rewarding both the failing and successful financial institutions? So where's the incentive for top executives to honour their fiduciary trust when they get rewarded no matter what? Even if the board of directors fire the CEOs for poor performance, these CEOs leave with millions of dollars in their golden parachettes, unlike the workers in their organisations that get layed off by the thousands with only pink slips to show for all their work?

If so, there's no justice in the American form of capitalism as practiced, just corruption that benefits those that are at the top, at the expense of the vast majority at the bottom.

Mr.Micro

quote by Blue_Lagoon
If so, there's no justice in the American form of capitalism as practiced, just corruption that benefits those that are at the top, at the expense of the vast majority at the bottom

Is that not the terrible irony of the capitalist system that the west has that drives our economies, and Governments take their revenues and taxes and do anything and everything to keep such a system in place, borne out by the bailouts and dismal regulation.This will not be lost on the rogue bankers and the upper echelons of corporations.

Black Swan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

This will not be lost on the rogue bankers and the upper echelons of corporations.

Indeed!

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So the taxpayer mortgages his/her future, and their children's future with historic federal deficits by uniformly rewarding both the failing and successful financial institutions? So where's the incentive for top executives to honour their fiduciary trust when they get rewarded no matter what? Even if the board of directors fire the CEOs for poor performance, these CEOs leave with millions of dollars in their golden parachettes, unlike the workers in their organisations that get layed off by the thousands with only pink slips to show for all their work?

I can't argue that as the current situation. That doesn't mean that the situation need to continue in the future, be the problem solved by greater regulation or incentives or programmes catering to smaller institutions to try to make those which are 'too large to fail' less critical, or whatever else.

NTM

silverharp

I though he was supposed to be a gifted speaker:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc

Manic Moran

Old news, in fairness.

NTM

Manic Moran

On the other hand, it seems that perhaps part of the Obama administration's plan to get people off private health insurance onto more affordable subsidised or public health insurance involves taking people who are currently on the public purse, and sending them to private healthcare.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

NTM

Pocono Joe

Today we try something different. Instead of my morning rant, a little cartoon I just made up to email some friends of mine.

Manic Moran

In the meantime, the Administration apparently can't make up its mind if the economy is fundamentally sound or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090315/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

During the fall campaign, Obama relentlessly criticized his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, for declaring, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong." Obama's team painted the veteran senator as out of touch and failing to grasp the challenges facing the country.

But on Sunday, that optimistic message came from economic adviser Christina Romer. When asked during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the fundamentals of the economy were sound, she replied: "Of course they are sound."

<snip>

Just a week ago, White House Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag declared that "fundamentally, the economy is weak." Days later, Obama told reporters he was confident in the economy.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, the Administration apparently can't make up its mind if the economy is fundamentally sound or not.

Do "sound" and "strong" mean the same thing?

You can have a sound principle for a business, but the business may be weak.

Imagine the fun we could have on boards if we could randomly interchange words to mean what we liked.

Manic Moran

A valid distinction, in fairness.

That said, it's also a problem with the word 'sound (adj) having two meanings.
M-W defines it both as 'Logically correct' and 'Healthy,' often times both being required at the same time. For example, if you're talking about a sound foundation for a house, it is implicit that you're talking both about the theoretical design and the practical application.

NTM

Sand

Its just politics - McCain was referring positively to the basic productivity and innovation of the US economy. That was twisted by the Obama campaign to portray McCain as saying something he hadnt. As youd expect, its an election and despite the talk about new politics, hope and change, politics doesnt change. In a similar way, his 100 years in Iraq comment was also twisted by Obama to mean something else. So much for change.

Now that the election is over, Obama can return to relative straight talking and acknowledge the basic soundness of the US economy in terms of productivity [ what has taken a hit is confidence, and the availability of easy credit - US workers didnt get more lazy or more dumb recently] because it isnt his job to knock the administration or his rivals anymore, he is the administration and its his rivals job to knock him.

Obama has inherited a relatively stable Iraq, and ironically enough will likely end up being the US President that establishes the 100 years in Iraq that McCain was referring to.

Manic Moran

More a Congressional issue than an Obama issue, but related.

New plan out today from the Administration. Get private investors, with federal aid, to buy up assets and help with the credit market. Apparently a good idea, in theory. The problem is that after the whole AIG thing and changing the rules after the fact, there is real concern that private investors aren't going to be particularly interested in investing in a program which may very well, at the whim of Congress, suddenly decide to slap a 90% tax on personal profits made with the assistance of government funding.

NTM

Pocono Joe

From what I’m reading, this celebrated plan by Geithner isn’t much more than a smoke screen.

If I understand it correctly... If the asset values go up, then the investors will profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt, leaving the government holding the bag.

So apparently the bottom line... it’s just some fancy window dressing of an indirect government purchase of bad assets, with no real benefit to the taxpayer if the assets do improve.

(everything put forward is an opinion)

Trouser_Press

Pocono Joe wrote: »

From what I’m reading, this celebrated plan by Geithner isn’t much more than a smoke screen.

Perhaps you should broaden your reading horizons some time?

Pocono Joe

Well, I looked at your link TP and didn’t quite understand what your point was. Did you want me to read "Bold Stimulus Job Promises Not Achieved" or maybe "Obama Budget is Drunk on Spending & Deficits?"

My comment was in regards to Geithner’s version of the CASH FOR TRASH plan. Here is a link for you to read from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1237800003-3/c4dQfc1sw2mLdPjSbiUw

jank

Regardless of the pro's and con's of Obama's bank plan, all i hear from people who disagree is just empty talk on how bad it is, but nothing on what they think will work and why. Laura Ingraham blames government meddling for this whole mess while its accepted that government regulators are the ones who failed in the oversight in the first place. So what is it, the government not doing enough or too much. TBH Obama cant win regardless.

Trouser_Press

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well, I looked at your link TP and didn’t quite understand what your point was. Did you want me to read "Bold Stimulus Job Promises Not Achieved" or maybe "Obama Budget is Drunk on Spending & Deficits?"

My comment was in regards to Geithner’s version of the CASH FOR TRASH plan. Here is a link for you to read from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1237800003-3/c4dQfc1sw2mLdPjSbiUw

Whooo hoooo, Pocono Joe has taken temporary leave from Coulter, Rush, KKK and Co to read the NYT....well done you!

Sand

Regardless of the pro's and con's of Obama's bank plan, all i hear from people who disagree is just empty talk on how bad it is, but nothing on what they think will work and why

It was already pointed out for you:

If I understand it correctly... If the asset values go up, then the investors will profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt, leaving the government holding the bag.

The US govt puts up the lion share of the purchase price, has very limited upside and pretty much unlimited downside

Its a great deal for the private investors, pretty terrible deal for tax payer money. Even if the assets are undervalued, the government wont see much reward despite taking practically all the risk.

If the option was Obamas plan, or just setting up a "good" government backed bank ( or better yet, banks with an eye to future privatisation so that none of them are "too big to fail"), which could restart lending to the real economy then option B would be better from the point of view that the government would reap the rewards to go with the risk, the money invested would go to the real economy rather than bank balance sheets, and the failed institutions would take the punishment for their errors which is pretty much the requirement of a functioning market system.

Pocono Joe

Trouser_Press wrote: »

Whooo hoooo, Pocono Joe has taken temporary leave from Coulter, Rush, KKK and Co to read the NYT....well done you!

Please show me where I have indicated any regard to the despicable KKK? If not I suggest you stick to the "Personal Issues" forum where your demeanor is better suited.

JohnMc1

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Please show me where I have indicated any regard to the despicable KKK? If not I suggest you stick to the "Personal Issues" forum where your demeanor is better suited.

Ignore Trouser Pants Joe.

GuanYin

Keep it civil, stop the personal remarks and back on topic.

Mr.Micro

Pocono Joe wrote: »

From what I’m reading, this celebrated plan by Geithner isn’t much more than a smoke screen.

If I understand it correctly... If the asset values go up, then the investors will profit, but if they go down, the investors can walk away from their debt, leaving the government holding the bag.

Despite all the talk and big plan its the Government/taxpayer who are going to take the hit. Its all dressed up like a turkey dinner to appear like its a great plan, for public consumption. In fact, it just means that the Government is essentially going to write off all of those toxic debts in time, so that the banking boys can get back to their greedy ways dreaming up the next scams.

It will happen again in one form or another IMO. Its this very manipulation of the market forces that caused much of this in the past by Bush and co. Now Obama appears to be doing the same. The real correction that is necessary would last years after all the excess but the price would be too much, so the current manipulation is probably just pushing the inevitable problem into the future.

Black Swan

Mr.Micro wrote: »

so the current manipulation is probably just pushing the inevitable problem into the future.

Reminds one of Social Security? Every presidential candidate has promised to fix it since FDR, and once elected, be they Republican or Democrat, it's soon forgotten and pushed off into the future (until it collapses with the extraordinary numbers of retiring Baby Boomers during the next decade).

The so called free market system sounds grand in theory, but in practice it has never existed without being propped up by government, no matter what party was in control.

af_thefragile

Maybe Ron Paul has the answer to the credit crisis...
Too bad no one pays attention to him...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2V50AS7K0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5lb0l3sYBo

realismpol

What, you actually fell for obama's hope and change and actually believed that anything would change? That was just a ploy much like clinton's election in the 1990's. His slogan was change during that campaign. Change from the father bush who went to war in kuwait and ruined the american economy back then. Obama is just renaming bush's policies to more user friendly terms but the same goal is still being sought.

Politicians do answer to higher powers i hope you understand and realise this and i think given the current economic situation many people now do. They simply are there to do what they are told. We are all responsible for this mess not just the politicians and yet the masses of sheeple are holding up obama like he's some kind of messiah. Hes not and he takes his que from another source. There was a lot of backslapping going on between the bush dynasty, the royals, g20 leaders and the obama's i'm sure during recent visits despite the on camera acting.

What will happen is obama will continue doing much of what he is instructed to do and things will continue pretty much as they have. Groups of people will have their protests, pretend they are angry with the situation and then go home and watch the latest game of football, rugby, movie or something else. We all care veheminetly about this manufactured crisis...but deep down we all know we are as much responsible for it as the bankers and politicans on a smaller level. We just use them as targets to vent our rage for our own sense of guilt over our own excesses we all engaged in during the boom years. We still don't want to make the sacrifice's ourselves required for 'real change' so we still entrust the politicans to carry out the 'phony change' to satisify ourselves. Then we sit back and critise them for it. That in a nutshell is what its all about. We are at the mercy of noone but our own sense of self importance, greed and laziness. We're all angry alright. We're all angry the boom came to an end and we can't buy them plasma screen tv's we bought in droves just years ago. I didn't see anyone complaining when things were good..

Manic Moran

Anyone else think that getting rid of Wagoner was a really idiotic move? He's got great loyalty within the company, and had over the last few years both managed to dramatically increase the quality of the cars and somewhat reduce the overheads. And he's being replaced by.... Wagoner's designated successor on the Board, so where's the change here other than a political sacrifice?

Not to mention also that by integrating so tightly with the control of GM, the Obama administration's now going to sink or swim with the company. If the Unions are his base, there are going to be a lot of unhappy voters if the company dies and they'll be looking at him, not GM's board. They can't vote against the GM board.

NTM

silverharp

Can the Mesiah levitate the housing market:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrW6UO5Zkok