Obama is simply clueless about the economy

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I will give you a chance at growth here.

Please, just to make me happy can you from now on call me "little sprout" instead of "spence"?

Real, adult, growth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Oprah Winfrey all made tons of money today. In my opinion, they didn't "steal" anything from the middle class. In my opinion, they made money because they make middle class customers want to buy their products VOLUNTARILY. These wealthy people are not confiscating anyone else's money. These wealthy people only get wealthier by making people want to freely choose to buy their products.

You tell me why I'm wrong, Spence. You tell all of us why every nickel those folks make, necessarily hurts someone else.

Our economy has shifted from more of a manufacturing base to more of a speculative base. On this alone the investor class has the upper hand.

It doesn't mean that the individual investor be it you, me or Oprah is necessarily a bad person. The issue is what the system appears to be doing long-term to the demographic and what this tells of the future of the American Dream.

Either support that ridiculous statement, or admit that it's pure liberal bullsh*t.

Changed my mind. I'd actually like you to call me "Pyle" instead of "little sprout".

Are there crooks out there that need to be watched? Obviously. But that's not what you said, nor is it what Obama is saying. You're saying that the wealth gap is "caused" by those at the top, and that is demonstrably false. You have been duped by a snake oil salesman, and if I was that gullable, I'd be upset about it.

Fortunately for both of us I'm a pretty smart guy and have done a lot of homework. What you think is "snake oil" is really just one of two major forces on our economy. They both keep us in balance.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Seems like they like it

more like paying homage to the Don of the Chicago Way...I thought you and he had a problem with corporations buying influence through big contributions?


Perhaps it like battered wife syndrome?



Perhaps that's Obama's point, that we have "underlying structural problems". Not sure where I've heard that before though...he's offered no solutions for the "underlying structural" problems to date


The problem with your assertion is that both democratic and republican politicians resemble your remark.

One might then intuit that ideology has little to do with the problem, and that you're entire premise is fundamentally invalid. it has everything to do with ideaology, you couldn't name a Constitutionalist from the democrat side of the aisle and you can't name a democrat who is serious about reigning in spending in any serious way, particularly the entitlement spending that constitututes the majority of that nearly 70 Trillion dollars


You should read his speech again.I read it, it is recycled garbage, a call to raise taxes and expand the role of government to ensure fairness of outcomes because government could infact do that if only it were properly funded, problem is all of it's previous promises to do so are massively unfunded already...all wrapped up in a divisive theme that would be worthty of a Third World Dictator.....I hear there's a possibility of an opening in Venezuala that would be perfect for him

-spence

there was nothing in that speech that would cure the ills that he described, he was making a case for giving him more money to "invest" for us though his expansion of the Nanny State....no thanks

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Fortunately for both of us I'm a pretty smart guy and have done a lot of homework. What you think is "snake oil" is really just one of two major forces on our economy. They both keep us in balance.

-spence

you have a strange need to constantly remind others, and probably yourself, that you are really, really smart and informed....do you stuff a salami in your jeans before you leave the house too? some weird compensation thing going on?


we are not "in balance", we are teetering on the edge and you, Obama and the democrats seem cynically determined to push us over...."snake oil"..is a false remedy is it not? A concoction sold by a smooth talking huckster pandering to the masses who fall trancelike at his words, hand over their money..but in the end, receive no actual benefit....no improvement of what ails them...it is snake oil and people like you have been selling it for a long time, it's promises are empty and it's effects are mostly misery but it sounds great when you are pitching it from the wagon....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your assertion that "just as many" is made up.

As for the 8%, I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made. The CBO figures back that up as well.


Not totally true. The tax cuts in the Stimulus Bill were weighted towards the middle which was in addition to the existing tax structure.


This is a funny little rant, and seriously, I do appreciate the effort you invested in writing it.

But you completely misread my statement.

Read it again.

-spence

"I think the Admin was showing some reasonable candor when they said the recession was MUCH deeper than anticipated when that statement was made"

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you have a strange need to constantly remind others, and probably yourself, that you are really, really smart and informed....do you stuff a salami in your jeans before you leave the house too? some weird compensation thing going on?

If anyone has a strange and constant need I'd say it's your obsession with making things up.

we are not "in balance", we are teetering on the edge and you, Obama and the democrats seem cynically determined to push us over...."snake oil"..is a false remedy is it not? A concoction sold by a smooth talking huckster pandering to the masses who fall trancelike at his words, hand over their money..but in the end, receive no actual benefit....no improvement of what ails them...it is snake oil and people like you have been selling it for a long time, it's promises are empty and it's effects are mostly misery but it sounds great when you are pitching it from the wagon....

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemploymentunder 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong. You say he was only wrong because the recession waas worse than he thought? Like Obama, I see you choose to support your inane claims with positions that cannot be confirmed. But even if what you say is true, it shows that Obama had no clue how bad things were at the time. So why should I trust that he knows how dire our debt situation is now?

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?

This is the guy, Obama, who also railed against the surge in Iraq, and refused to admit it was working.

Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".

Clueless. You inadvertently supported my original premise that he's clueless about the economy. If he had no appreciation for how bad things were, he doesn't have the tools for this job.

Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

[Nebe]

Lol spence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".



Good news...My analysis is that you're not lying. I think you're just misinformed.

-spence

"Obama actually stated the Surge had been a military success "beyond our wildest dreams".


He said that after bashing the surge forever. Obama only admitted the surge was a success when he knew that there was no way he could claim otherwise. He criticized the surge for YEARS. But why would you let that fact get in your way?

HJere's what he said in 2007..."We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground"

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...rge_won_t_work

Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess. Obama was wrong about what the impact of the surge would be, and he was wrong about what the impact of the stimulus would be. Those are 2 serious issues (macroeconomics and military strategy) to be clueless about, if you want to be president.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

"a Jan. 9, 2009, report called "The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" from Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, the vice president's top economic adviser.

Their report projected that the stimulus plan proposed by Obama would create between three and four million jobs by the end of 2010. The report also includes a graphic predicting unemployment rates with and without the stimulus. Without the stimulus (the baseline), unemployment was projected to hit about 8.5 percent in 2009 and then continue rising to a peak of about 9 percent in 2010. With the stimulus, they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at just under 8 percent in 2009."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ma-promised-s/

Is it fair to hold Obama accountable for the actions of the economic advisors he appoints? I see no reason why not.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, you also accidentally stumbled onto the truth when you talked about the loss of manufacturing jobs, and how some (like those on Wall Street, those in tech or healtrhcare) weathered that storm OK.

Here are some things about this issue that you left out, either on purpose becxause it makes you look stupid, or by accident because you are ignorant on the issue.

(1) Mist successful people didn't "cause" the economic globalization that led to the loss of manufacturing jobs, but liberals keep pounding the class warfare drum.

(2) if anything, it's obvious that unions exacerbated the loss of manufacturing base. Why? Because in non-unionized places like China, you don't have semi-skilled union folks getting insane benefits and pay. Those union practices can only increase costs, and that made us uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Spence, you try and make that wrong.

(3) if the manufacturing base is gone, I don't see how attacking the successful helps anyone. What we should do is tell kids to make the same decisions as successful people, not to hate the successful people. My niece could have majored in communications, and gone to work at the mall after college for minumum wage. Instead, she got her degree in nursing and can write her own ticket. She didn't hurt anybody, she sure as hell didn't take anything away from anybody.

Instead of painting her as the evil boogeyman (which is what Obama does), we should be telling college kids to BE LIKE HER. If you want to make $75,000 in your first year out of college, then you need to (1) pick a major in demand, and (2) get good grades. If you choose to major in communications at a 3rd rate school, don't bitch to me when your life becomes a struggle. Despite what your liberal ilk claim, the American dream is readily accessible to those who want to earn it.

[Jim in CT]

And Spence, I see you haven't even come close to responding to how we get $60 trillion we need. Why is that, do you suppose?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

He said that after bashing the surge forever. Spence, the surge may have exceeded Obama's expectations, but it didn't exceed Bush's or McCain's expectations...the surge did EXACTLY what knowledgable fiolks said it would do.

Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.

As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...

I agree with you, Obama's expectations were way off. That's the problem. When you spend your entire career playing the race card and voting "present", you don't develop good instincts for these things, I guess.

Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.

You are correct, I can't see that Obama said unemployment would stay below 8%, but hus econoimic advisors sure said it.

If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.

And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.

First off, Obama never even said it.

The number is actually a "projection" from report by Whitehouse economic advisors in early 2009. It was based on current (at the time) CBO economic data and carried a large margin of error.

So your accusation that Obama promised the Stimulus would keep unemployment at 8% is factually not correct. The Republicans who have been barking this claim are either misinformed or lying.

Are you just misinformed or lying?


Again, you don't have your facts in order.

-spence

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...8-unemployment



http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Good to admit you're wrong. Obama did oppose the surge for sure, but it's not that he wasn't knowledgeable. I think his position that additional troops alone wouldn't be enough to stop the violence and that it would take pressure off of Iraqi's is quite reasonable. There were a variety of proposals on the table for how to improve conditions in Iraq.

As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage...


Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate.


If you read what I stated above you'd see that that's not true. I believe if you factor in the real economic drop the projection is still within the margin of error.

And more importantly, why aren't you calling me "Pyle"?

-spence

"As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage..."

Spence, unlike Obama,and I suppose unlike you, I was there before and after the surge. Everyone knows that the reduction in violence was a direct result of the increased troop presence in the forward areas. You suggest the reduction in sectarian fighting COINCIDENTALLY matched up with the increased troop presence?

Clueless. I mean, clueless.

"Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate. "

Oh, see. So when Obama is as wrong as can be on the economy or on th esurge, it's because these things are, unfortunately, not an exact science. Did you say the same thing about Bush and the start of the Iraq war? That was also a result of incorrect interpretation of data, but you don't seem to be willing to give Bush the same get-out-of-jail-free card that you give Obama.

Bush supported the surge, because vcirtually every single military commander said it would work. Obama, somehow, concluded that he knew better. If Obama thinnks he knows more about these things than the guys with blood on their boots, what does that say about Obama?

The same thing it says about you. You and Obama are both so blinded by ideology that you cannot see facts before your eyes. Obama thinks the best way to address our debt ($60 trillion) is to tweak tax rates on a handful of zillionaires. You agree. Neither of you are swayed by the fact that the math clearly shows that any addiitonal revenue won't even be enough to pay the INTEREST on what we owe. But that strategy is out of the commie playbook, and that's all that matters to you and Obama.

So when conservatives admit the truth, you (and Obama) know you can't respond based on the issues. All you can do is shriek "YUO HATE POOR PEOPLE! VOTE FOR ME, OR THE MEAN REPUBLICAN WILL KICK YOU OUT IN THE STREET!!"

That's literally all you have.

I keep asking you how you'd generate $60 trillion by adding $90 billion of tax revenue, and you keep d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

The well known "conservative" Barney Frank says it too:

"Frank: Obama admin 'dumb' to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O'Brien - 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET

It was "dumb" for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday."
Blogs - TheHill.com

http://otrans.3cdn.net/ee40602f9a7d8172b8_ozm6bt5oi.pdf

if you look at the dems report, at pag.5 you'll see the chart of unemployment with and without the "stimulus".
With the stimulus it STAYS right UNDER 8%.

If you read your article you'd see that Frank was stating that to discuss the number at all was bad politically, not that he disagreed with the projection.

And he used the word "predict" not "promise".

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"As you know well, the success of the Surge wasn't really just about more troops and a shift in tactics. The timetable of sectarian fighting worked to our advantage..."

Spence, unlike Obama,and I suppose unlike you, I was there before and after the surge. Everyone knows that the reduction in violence was a direct result of the increased troop presence in the forward areas. You suggest the reduction in sectarian fighting COINCIDENTALLY matched up with the increased troop presence?

Clueless. I mean, clueless.

"Well, this is how our government functions. Legislation is based on a set of assumptions that may not be accurate. "

Oh, see. So when Obama is as wrong as can be on the economy or on th esurge, it's because these things are, unfortunately, not an exact science. Did you say the same thing about Bush and the start of the Iraq war? That was also a result of incorrect interpretation of data, but you don't seem to be willing to give Bush the same get-out-of-jail-free card that you give Obama.

Bush supported the surge, because vcirtually every single military commander said it would work. Obama, somehow, concluded that he knew better. If Obama thinnks he knows more about these things than the guys with blood on their boots, what does that say about Obama?

The same thing it says about you. You and Obama are both so blinded by ideology that you cannot see facts before your eyes. Obama thinks the best way to address our debt ($60 trillion) is to tweak tax rates on a handful of zillionaires. You agree. Neither of you are swayed by the fact that the math clearly shows that any addiitonal revenue won't even be enough to pay the INTEREST on what we owe. But that strategy is out of the commie playbook, and that's all that matters to you and Obama.

So when conservatives admit the truth, you (and Obama) know you can't respond based on the issues. All you can do is shriek "YUO HATE POOR PEOPLE! VOTE FOR ME, OR THE MEAN REPUBLICAN WILL KICK YOU OUT IN THE STREET!!"

That's literally all you have.

I keep asking you how you'd generate $60 trillion by adding $90 billion of tax revenue, and you keep d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g.

I'm not responding to this post in detail until you edit it and replace "spence" with "Pyle".

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you read your article you'd see that Frank was stating that to discuss the number at all was bad politically so now you are admitting that he DID discuss the number?
, not that he disagreed with the projection.

And he used the word "predict" not "promise".

-spence

Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Spence, he said the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%, and he was spectacularly wrong.

Originally Posted by spence
Well, we should probably fact check your assertion.
First off, Obama never even said it.

"The administration famously released a chart during the fight over its signature $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) showing that, if that package were enacted, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent."

promise, predict, project....whatever "p" word you want to use to describe it or how it was delivered to the public or by which member(s) of "OBAMA'S" Administration...it was "wrong"....and dumb...here's a good one for you...prevaricate
did they "predict" that the way we'd get back to 8% unemployment is that millions of American's would simply give up looking for work

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not responding to this post in detail until you edit it and replace "spence" with "Pyle".

-spence

I kinda a like "Pile" if you are replacing the name "spence"

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

As for housing, Obama certainly has worked to help reduce foreclosures. You'd probably consider it socialism though, or government enabling less personal responsibility.

-spence

yup...and it's worked out about as well as most Obama initiatives....

"The Obama administration's initial foreclosure-prevention programs, launched in early 2009, were intended to help 7 million to 9 million people. So far, they've aided about 2 million, and not all of those are out of foreclosure danger.

Programs begun later have also faltered. One intended to help at least 500,000 has helped just a few hundred a year after its launch. Another initiative to extend $1 billion to help the jobless or underemployed avoid foreclosure ended in September, obligating less than half of its funds. The unused money went back to the U.S. Treasury.

As of Nov. 30, the government had spent just $2.8 billion of the $46 billion war chest it had in 2009 to devote to the housing crisis, the Treasury Department says. More has been committed, but only $13 billion will ultimately be spent, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in March."

"Every program has fallen far short of goals. I can't think of one that's been largely successful," says John Dodds, director of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project, a non-profit that's been involved in foreclosure prevention for decades.



What went wrong with foreclosure aid programs? ? USATODAY.com


also

75% of modified home loans will redefault
By Les Christie, staff writerJune 16, 2010: 3:02 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most borrowers who have had their mortgages modified through a government-sponsored program will redefault within 12 months, according to a report released Wednesday.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/real...mods/index.htm

and

HuffPo
HAMP: Mortgage Modifications Slow To Trickle Under Obama Anti-Foreclosure Program

08/ 9/11

WASHINGTON -- Since the Home Affordable Modification Program launched in the months following President Obama's inauguration, nearly 870,000 struggling homeowners have been kicked out of the initiative, while just 657,044 remain in permanent modifications.

For eligible borrowers, HAMP lowers monthly payments to 31 percent of their monthly income by reducing interest rates, extending the term of a loan and temporarily forbearing payments. If a borrower successfully makes reduced trial payments for three months, the modification is supposed to become permanent -- but in its early history the program has been notorious for its drawn-out and often hopeless trial mods.

President Obama said in 2009 that the program would help 3 to 4 million households modify their mortgages. The Treasury Department, which administers HAMP, backed away from that goal last year and started measuring the program's success mainly by the number of modifications across the entire mortgage servicing industry.

[Jim in CT]

Spence, what about that $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities. You have no opinion on that? Nothing at all?

Of course not. You don't know what to say about that, because Obama hasn't told you what to say. And like any other mindless parrot, you can't regurgitate the words unless your master trains you first.

$60 trillion. And that IGNORES the $15 trillion in operating debt that we currently have (the number you see in Times Square), so our total debt is more along the lines of $75 trillion, which is $250,000 for each of the 300 million of us.

Obama's plan is to ignore this, and to demonize anyone who bravely suggests that we need to address this problem. Because Obama hasn't chimed in yet, Spence has nothing to say. Nothing. Yet Spence claims he is well informed and intelligent.

[Raven]

no he is NOT ! Clueless
In fact .....he just gave away 8 BILLION dollars (yesterday)
of "our Money" without even asking
so that proves it right there....
there is NO debt .... everything is just fine and DANDY .

[justplugit]

Was that for more electricity in Africa so there can be some more pollution from
coal burning?
The Chinese also want to buy our land in Tennessee for coal mining so the rest of the world can pollute, but we are discouraged here with the highest tech in the world to reduce pollution. Like we won't be affected by their air and they will join us in anti-pollution.