Unjustified Impatience.

[kentuck]

Yes, we have very high unemployment. No, Obama has not had time to fix it.

Yes, the Repubs left a big mess. No, Obama has not had time to clean it up.

Yes, the Bush taxcuts are in place even as we speak. No, they did not create jobs.

Yes, the Repubs removed every regulation they could think of. No, it did not spur the economy - at least, not in this country.

Yes, Bush and the Repubs doubled the debt in eight short years. No, Obama has not spent more than Bush because the first budget Obama had was leftover from the Bush Administration.

Yes, we have a huge deficit. No, Obama did not create it.

Yes, the Democrats are in charge. No they have not had time to clean up the mess left by Bush and the Republicans. It may take several more years, if it is possible? Republicans screwed this country? Yes.

[yellerpup]

1. Agree 100%.

:kick: & Rec.

[AtomicKitten]

2. We were warned.

"So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. Change will take time. There will be setbacks and false starts and sometimes we’ll make mistakes."

* Pres Obama from his Yes We Can speech.

K&R :hi:

[kentuck]

4. Unfortunately, he didn't say it enough...

Understandably so. Why be negative in a collapsing economy? But Christine Romer did him no favors when she said unemployment would not go above 8% because of the stimulus.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Chris Hayes was on MSNBC this past week talking about the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus.

Can't remember if he was on Rachel's show or Olbermann's show. Sorry.

He said that Bush made sure his tax cut arrived in one check with a hoopla letter letting them know HE sent it. Hayes said that when people receive a lump sum of money, they put it in the bank and that's not stimulative. On the other hand, he said Pres Obama did the right kind of stimulus by putting money immediately into peoples' paychecks each week which they will spend. He said Pres Obama was the unsung hero for doing it the right way, the real stimulative way.

I understand your concerns, but none of us has any control over what the wingnuts are saying that really has no bearing on truth or reality.

[Exilednight]

3. I don't disagree that repugs screwed up our government ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

but don't pretend like a handful of Dems had nothing to do with it.

I also don't buy into the notion that Obama has not had enough time to fix it. He had the largest Congressional majority that he is ever going to have during his time as president, yet he's only managed to deliver water-downed legislation and can expect even less help from repugs this time around.

He needs to grow a damn backbone and go after repugs with the same tenacity that they go after Dems. He's running the Democratic party, now is the time to act like it.

[kentuck]

5. And you might soon find out....

That two more years of Republicanism is not enough time either. You seem to minimize the depth of the problem that was inherited. It was no "normal" recession.

[Exilednight]

7. No recesion if ever "normal". They all have their own unique ...........

traits and problems. Obama was told that the stimulus wasn't big enough, but everyone was running around going "relax, he's got this, it's three dimensional chess, he's the smartest mother-fucker in the room" and so and so forth. For all his no drama, 3D chess playing and intelligence, you would figure he would be smart enough to listen to an economist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics and the John Bates Clark Medal.

Sadly, like all chess players, he's sacrificing his pawns (us) to protect his king (his presidency).

[kentuck]

9. There was this little obstacle called "Congress"...

..which no economist could persuade to vote any other way than they did. Too bad Obama cannot write the laws himself and sign them overnight...

[Exilednight]

10. If you don't try, then you can't claim victory ...............

Obama didn't even try to push through a bigger stimulus bill.

All this repug obstructionism is only allowed because Obama doesn't fight back. He lets the repugs set the talking points and continually plays catch-up.

[ProSense]

11. "Obama didn't even try to push through a bigger stimulus bill. "

Facts

[Exilednight]

14. Here's the real facts .............

Out of the stimulus bill, nearly a 1/3 of it was not used to stimulate the economy.

For an amount for ‘‘Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program’’,
$650,000,000, for additional coupons and related activities under
the program implemented under section 3005 of the Digital Television
Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005: ....

For an additional amount for ‘‘Violence Against Women Prevention
and Prosecution Programs’’, $225,000,000 for grants to combat
violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796gg
et seq.): Provided, That, $50,000,000 shall be for transitional
housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking
or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103–322).

You can go on and on through the stimulus bill and find stuff like this. Nobel causes to be sure, but not stimulus. There were parts in here for student loans, which I am all for, but it's not stimulus. No jobs were created by a student getting a loan.

Were there good things in the stimulus bill that actually created jobs? Yes, but not enough and now much of the money is running out. Most of the bill sunset in September of this year.

To say that we spent $700 billion in stimulus is patently false. We spent $700 billion, but a good chunk of that was not spent on stimulus or long term job growth creation. It was, at best, a band-aid and failed to address the real economic problems.

[kentuck]

15. The last I had read...

...was that all of the stimulus was not spent? And that which was spent, about 40% of it went to tax cuts for the working and middle class?

[ProSense]

19. What does that have to do with your comment about not pushing for a larger stimulus? n/t

[Exilednight]

20. Because the majority of the stimulus wasn't stimulus. The stimulus needed to be bigger. n/t

[ProSense]

21. Again, what does that have to do with your claim that he didn't push for a bigger stimulus? n/t

[Exilednight]

22. Again, a good part of the bill was not stimulus. If he wanted all this stuff, then he .............

should of fought for a bigger bill.

[treestar]

37. That's not a typo

Should of instead of should have shows ignorance.

This has been brought to you by the grammar police. But since you could do such a better job than the President, it's not unreasonable to require perfect grammar too.

[Exilednight]

40. This is a message board, not a thesis. But whatever makes you warm and fuzzy inside. n/t

[treestar]

41. So why would you use incorrect grammar, message board or not?

There's no way that's a typo, either. Clearly you did not know that though "should've" may sound like "should of" it is a contraction for "should have."

And thus your credentials for determining that others have made mistakes are called into question.

[Exilednight]

46. Alright mister right-wing talking points. Karl Rove would be proud of you.

Don't like hearing the facts of how the president failed? Attack the grammar of the poster.

[KossackRealityCheck]

54. "No jobs were created by a student getting a loan"

You can't be serious. You realize that students who get student loans are taught by teachers.

There was a vast expansion of employment in community colleges, which have begun to run classes late into the evening and many of the community college new faculty are laid off professionals.

Not to mention that being a student is itself an alternative to being unemployed and lots of laid off young people used the recession to go back to school and get new skills and qualifications.

At the height of the financial crisis, the private sector, which had taken over student loans in the past decades, made virtually no loans -- or more accurately, not a new single student loan security was issued.

Student loans were taken over almost entirely by the federal government which saved tens thousands of university jobs, from faculty to janitors.

[lunatica]

13. Too bad you aren't President

You're obviously so much more qualified.

[Exilednight]

17. You have a problem with people pointing out what should be the obvious?

Go through the bill line by line and ask yourself how each part contributes to long term job growth. There's a lot of short term band-aid solutions, and a majority of the bill does address long term growth, but a majority of the bill is not enough - the ENTIRE BILL needed to contribute to long term job growth.

It amazes me that some people are willing to argue over something they haven't even read. It's like discussing a Shakespearean play with someone who said "no, never read or saw the play, but I read the cliff notes."

[ProSense]

24. "a majority of the bill does address long term growth"

it's a stimulus bill, it wasn't designed to address long-term growth. It was designed to stimulate the economy.

Maybe you're the one who needs to review the provisions of the act.

The majority of the package, from food stamps (the most stimulative) to state aid, was designed to stimulate the economy.

[Exilednight]

26. I know what the provisions are ............

Stimulus has to have a long term effect in order to be useful. Short term wasn't going to do it, and anyone with a brain knows it.

And it still doesn't erase the fact that large portions of this bill weren't even stimulus.

[ProSense]

28. "Stimulus has to have a long term effect in order to be useful."

Stimulus is supposed to jumpstart the economy. It's effects are not long-term. If the economy doesn't respond, there may be other factors. The point is that the stimulus worked, as many have indicated, including Paul Krugman, though he continues to say it was too small. It's not clear what impact a couple of hundred billion more would have given the depth of the crisis.

The fact is that it worked

You can quibble about more stimulus, but the underlying economic problems (includng the mortgage crisis) aren't going to be solved by infrastructure spending. That is a long-term fix, and while spending four times as much on infrastructure than the President called for would eventually create more jobs in the long term, the economy has more serious structural problems.

[Exilednight]

31. That's debatable. Still nearly double digit unemployment and ...............

a record number of foreclosures. Any private sector gain in jobs is nearly being offset by the loss of government jobs.

Argue it any way you want, but this an anemic recovery that teeters on relapse.

[ProSense]

34. Hmmm?

"Any private sector gain in jobs is nearly being offset by the loss of government jobs."

The amount of government jobs being lost is a factor, but there aren't nearly enough job losses in that area to have a significant impact if reversed. The problem runs deeper and mostly in the private sector.

Stimulus and the foreclosure crisis?

"Argue it any way you want, but this an anemic recovery that teeters on relapse."

No one is arguing that the recovery isn't a weak one.


edited for clarity.

[girl gone mad]

49. Like I said..

they can't handle the truth.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lunatica]

25. Like I said, it's too bad you aren't President

Yawn...

[treestar]

35. "push through" implies that individual Congresspersons do

not have minds of their own. If anyone has that job, it is the majority leaders in Congress. Even so, they can't force others to vote for something they won't vote for. You don't get elected to Congress by being a pushover. And you'll do what your constituents want. The President wanting you to do it if they don't is no motive to do it.

[ProSense]

12. "No recesion if ever 'normal'"?

It was the worse recession since the Great Depression.

The economic failures are the result of decades of bullshit policies. It all collapses and the President is supposed to fix it before anyone even understands the full implications of the crisis.

Siglitz

Given the complexity of the economic system, the difficulties in predicting how expectations will be altered, and the pervasive irrationalities in the market, there is no way the impact of any economic policy could be ascertained with certainty. There may be some circumstances in which the effect of monetary policy can be accurately gauged. But recessions of this depth come only once every 75 years. What is true in normal times may be of little relevance now, especially as central banks engage in unusual measures such as QE.

A lot of people are proposing economic solutions tried over the past 30 years (Reagan thru Bush 2) as viable for the Obama administration, which is dealing with an economic crisis of historic proportions. A lot of these economists, including Stiglitz, were around, at least during the Clinton years, and in recent time should have been making a lot more noise. Some warned, but if the media, corporations and country didn't take them seriously, why are they surprised that the media and corporations are pushing back hard against the administration?

The mortgage crisis is a relatively new phenomenon and the solution is not going to be a quick or easy fix.

The greedy corporate assholes have no intention of cooperating unless they get their way.

[Carolina Lady]

23. Yes, he was told

Yes, he was told that the stimulus wasn't big enough, and look at the hell it took to pass the bill, so sure passing a larger one would have been easier. Yes, he was told that people want a public option, but look at the hell that it took to pass that bill,so sure passing the public option or even better single payor would hav been easier. Yes, he was told that the finreg bill didn't go far enough, but look at the hell that it took to pass that bill.

It would have been nice if he were able to do everything that people want done in the time frame and the manner that they want it, but to me, that's not going to always happen when you have a "big tent ". Not every democrat is going to vote the same way. What works for a Dem in NY or CA, is not going to work where in NC where I live.

[Exilednight]

27. What did it take? Where was Obama while waiting for Congress to do all the .............

work. I will give Obama credit for selling the stimulus bill, but it wasn't a good bill to begin with. But he was an absent parent during the health-care and finreg debate.

Again, he was reactive, and as president with large majorities in both chambers you can't afford to be reactive to the minority party.

[ProSense]

29. "Where was Obama while waiting for Congress to do all the...work."

Knowledge of the facts would help.

The problem with most of the complaints is that they amount to say anything. The President is not sitting around "waiting for Congress to do all the...work."

[Exilednight]

32. You're right, he's busy making backroom deals with big-pharma. n/t

[ProSense]

36. Well, there you have it,

more say anything.

[CakeGrrl]

6. Really? The BUSH deficit should have been ERASED by now? REALLY?

What economic models are you referencing to determine that, if the President had done X, Y, or Z that the deficit would be gone in TWO YEARS and unemployment should be back down to pre-Bush levels?

Or maybe I should ask...what is your definition of "fixing it"?

Honestly, I think it defies reality to expect that the ripple effects of two terms of bad policy be reversed this quickly. And don't say the President promised that, because he damn well did not.

[Exilednight]

8. I'm not arguing about deficits ...................

The deficit is the least of this countries economic worries at the moment.

On the other hand, two years if plenty of time to put a major dent in unemployment and stop the housing crash that still continues.

[treestar]

33. He can still only sign legislation that comes from that Congress

watered down or however you want to describe it. He does not "deliver" that, he signs or vetoes it.

[Exilednight]

38. "only sign legislation" So I guess it really doesn't matter what Democrat ............

we put in office since that "only" what they do.

It's not like they're the leader of the party of anything. It's not like he has the ability to stand in front of a podium and urge people to call and write their Congress(wo)men to help advance his legislation. It's not like he built a network of supporters throughout the election that he could tap into to help advance the agenda he campaigned on.

I guess you're right, he has no real influence when it comes to governing.

[treestar]

42. That's not what I said

What I said is that Congresspeople have separate power. Any President can speak all they want, but each Congressman has their own vote. The President is not powerless, of course. He can veto what they give him. Unless the opposition has over 2/3 of Congress, that makes him more powerful than he is.

But all you are saying is that somehow, the President should be more persuasive. The position of President is not set up to allow an individual's persuasiveness to rule us for four years. Like I said, anyone with a fourth grade understanding of civics knows that Congress was meant to be a separate source of power. The separation of powers was considered a good thing, so that we would not fall under the tyranny of one person.

[Exilednight]

45. Who said anything about ruling? The power of the president is set up to ........

so he can move forward and persuade the people to support his legislative agenda. The people, in turn, persuade their congress(wo)men to support the preisdent.

To argue otherwise would mean that no one running for president should campaign on a legislative agenda.

[Phx_Dem]

16. K&R

[tavalon]

30. I'm not complaining about what he hasn't done (except DADT)

I'm complaining that he's supported many Bush policies (what president wouldn't keep extra powers, but I had expected better of him. He treated Progressives like were pariah rather than his most active supporters.

[David Zephyr]

43. K&R.

Kentuck, take heart. The majority of the American People know this. They are still unhappy (how could they not be), but they are not running into the arms of the Republican Party.

Every word you wrote is true. But it needs repeating and repeating. K&R.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. And when Obama/Dems have tried to solve these problems, a la,

extension of unemployment insurance, a jobs bill, a green/energy bill, all legislation has been held up in the Senate.

The tragedy of this election is NOT that some Democrats will lose. The tragedy of this election is that the 110th U.S. House of Representatives has been one of the most productive in recent memory, and what is the response from voters? Voting out the people who worked to improve lives while rewarding the very same people who caused the crises in the first place.

I don't understand it. I never will.

Harry Reid should be losing his job. Not Nancy Pelosi!!

[eridani]

47. All of that is true. Howver, no one in either party seems to be concerned about

--the really abysmal "new normal" that we are recovering into. This is the third jobless recovery of this century, ferchrissakes!

[kentuck]

48. Very true...

The corporations have moved all our jobs so they can have more personal profit.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

50. People are 'hoodwinked' by the Republicans

[Zoeisright]

51. Not to mention the fact that Repukes have done everything in their power to

squash everything the President has tried to do to fix the repuke shit they left all over the place.

[Clio the Leo]

52. Speak to it! nt

[mkultra]

53. K&R