Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

Haven't you heard? Less regulation, more tax cuts. It'll turn things right around.

A few true patriots in the Senate even introduced their "no-cost stimulus act", also called "Drill More, Tax Less".

Simple, quick, effective. Won't cost us a dime.

Read it and weep:

Link (new window)

Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

That's not it at all. It's this:
The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

Geithner had one plan that he was working on for months. He switched it up in the final few days before announcing it, without any details. He screwed up his first big moment.

Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.




STEVE HOLT!

NewportBarGuy: Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

RON PAUL!

My silly congressman and his gold standard ideas

Last One Left: Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

That's not it at all. It's this:
The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

Geithner had one plan that he was working on for months. He switched it up in the final few days before announcing it, without any details. He screwed up his first big moment.

Can we at least get him some unpaid interns while he waits for a staff?

The delays in nominating people at Treasury has been Obama's biggest mistake, and so far his only moderate-to-big one. It's definitely an improvement over the old one - Bush's attempts to overturn the arsenic rules cost the nation a lot and damaged our environmental credibility, and his refusal to listen to the outgoing administration and follow up on the U.S.S. Cole up through this point in his administration led directly to 9/11 and the Iraq War - but blame where blame is due.

Obama's correcting the problem, but this has cost us a significant amount over the optimal path. Still better than the alternatives by far, but if he comes up this way and holds a town hall meeting, I'll have some very sharp questions for him.

Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

And then, when i wake up from my nocturnal emissions, i read the QQ on fark and fap some more.

Gangway Fathead: Can we at least get him some unpaid interns while he waits for a staff?

Not legally, no. Hiring and firing for the Cabinet and below is fraught with difficulties, Constitutionally.

The Constitution is screwed up, honestly, when it comes to transitions. It just so happened that a major emergency occurred between administrations, and the Constitution requires Senate advice and consent for hundreds of posts. The President-Elect should be vested with powers to nominate people for posts during the period of the outgoing Congress, and Congress should be able to provide advice and consent for the immediate Cabinet members during that period. That way, once the new Congress starts, any non-controversial Cabinet members are already in place and can begin hiring the sub-level people.

Alternatively, the VP needs to be granted real authority. He should be able to select people for sub-Cabinet level positions on his own, with the Senate having the power to reject any one of them with a simple majority resolution.

Obama's been hamstrung by the advice and consent provision, and it didn't help that he had to babysit Hilda Solis and Ron Kirk through the Senate confirmation process. That bullshiat cost the nation valuable time.

Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

The Democrats are issuing credit default swaps and credit default obligations? Who knew?!

Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

Actually, if you read the article, the primary concern was that the plan wasn't enacted fast enough, not that the plan itself is poor.

Gangway Fathead: Can we at least get him some unpaid interns while he waits for a staff?

Sure (as long as I get to be one of them :P). The Republicans have been using delaying tactics rather carelessly. But he's been at the job since November (not to mention his time before at the NY Fed). Plus, he's testified a bunch of times in Congress and has barely raised the issue of a lack of staff.

Fortunately, Geithner seems to have recovered some form recently.

captainktainer: The delays in nominating people at Treasury has been Obama's biggest mistake.
Obama's been having a bit of a problem finding an honest politician.

Sum Dum Gai: Actually, if you read the article, the primary concern was that the plan wasn't enacted fast enough, not that the plan itself is poor.

Yeah because what really matters is that we spend these hundreds of billions as fast as possible, not that these billions actually accomplish anything.

And yes: to the extent that they have actually done any "rescuing" it's pretty much all been trying to reinflate the bubbles. Giving money to people so that they can keep paying the mortgages on their massively overpriced homes is doing nothing but maintaining the huge home price inflation that occurred over the last few years. Same with "buying up toxic assets". We're pouring money down this hole in an effort to stave off the inevitable, and the end result is that everything will collapse anyway but we'll have a much bigger bill at the end.

Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

You do know that if Obama fails to make serious progress against the recession, he's a one-term president, right? Even if you think he's a communist plant, you have to believe he'd like a second term.

The economists predict a bottom in sixth months. So either go all-in now or wait out for the second big dip. Whatever you do, do not put all you money in in six months.

Obama was still highly favoured by economists during the election, I wonder if WSJ mentioned that?

Rug Doctor: Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

You do know that if Obama fails to make serious progress against the recession, he's a one-term president, right? Even if you think he's a communist plant, you have to believe he'd like a second term.

Just because he wants a second term doesn't mean his policies aren't stupid and ineffective.

I don't expect Obama to fix the problem in a month but I expect he and his Democrat friends not to make things worse with tax raises and giving unions the ability to bully people in to joining which will result in higher prices and higher unemployment.

It's funny, when they say something supporting Obama, people applaud them. When they say something against Obama, they're suddenly unfit for their job.

Rug Doctor: Phaid: Maybe if they were actually trying to fix the problem, rather than simply enacting Democrat wet-dream programs and trying to keep reinflating the bubbles that got us here in the first place, they'd have scored better.

You do know that if Obama fails to make serious progress against the recession, he's a one-term president, right? Even if you think he's a communist plant, you have to believe he'd like a second term.

There are multiple things going on.

First is the bank rescue. This is the real attempt to get the economy going again. Without ongoing action by the Federal Reserve and Treasury, and subsequent review of the finance regulations, economic recovery will drag on for years. So far federal action has had mixed reviews, but really it's too early to tell how effective their actions have been.

Second is the stimulus bill. This was a mixture of delivering on campaign promises, helping states continue to spend at normal levels, and long term budget increases for federal programs.

The only thing necessary in the stimulus bill was the aid to the states, to prevent them from cutting spending, which would have been a nasty shock to the system. That's about a third of the cost of the bill.

The budget games and tax cuts could have just been rolled into the normal budget process. Nobody seriously expects these to be effective short term measures.

Which brings us to the third thing, the budget. The budget calls for $3.5 trillion in new debt in the next 2 years, and an additional $4.5 trillion in the following 8 years. The lowest yearly deficit is "only" $700 billion, as compared to our previous high water mark in 2008 of $480 billion.

All in all, I'm good with the bank rescue efforts, and the aid to the states. I'm OK with what we plan to spend money on, in the budget (and the stealth budget portions of the stimulus bill). The massive increases to federal debt? Not so much...

Of the $8 trillion in additional federal debt that we are talking about, only about $1 to $1.5 trillion of it can be attributed to the economic crash. And that's assuming that we get $0 return on our investments in the finance sector.

The rest is a spending wish list.

Economists can give us theories as to why things happened the way they did in the past.

But if an economist ever tells you he has a fool-proof model for the future, he's just out to rob you blind.

economists have been predicting the problem obama's trying to fix for a while now. hell, even the economist was shooting warnings as far back as 2006.

DeathByGeekSquad: It's funny, when they say something supporting Obama, people applaud them. When they say something against Obama that contradicts everything they said previously, they're suddenly unfit for their job.

Better.

Phaid: Yeah because what really matters is that we spend these hundreds of billions as fast as possible, not that these billions actually accomplish anything.

Actually, that is exactly what we need to do - and I'm not sure why you would think differently. Now, would we be better off if each and every cent did something incredibly positive? Only if you can put a plan together that would meet that goal, RIGHT NOW.

Phaid: And yes: to the extent that they have actually done any "rescuing" it's pretty much all been trying to reinflate the bubbles. Giving money to people so that they can keep paying the mortgages on their massively overpriced homes is doing nothing but maintaining the huge home price inflation that occurred over the last few years. Same with "buying up toxic assets". We're pouring money down this hole in an effort to stave off the inevitable, and the end result is that everything will collapse anyway but we'll have a much bigger bill at the end.

Reinflate the bubble or keep it from bursting? There is a difference.

I absolutely agree with you, the price of real estate is a major part of why this economy is no longer competitive with the rest of the world. It impacts every aspect of our cost of living and provides no real tangible benefit other than people believing the paper assets they own and then thinking it was safe to tap into it.

However, the choice is one of do we allow the market to crash, say, in a span of six months or over several years? I don't know anyone that is suggesting a crash is the proper way to proceed, as crashes tend to drive the market value well below where it should be, something that nobody gains from.

There is no one right answer but there are a pile of wrong ones.

Need more of this...yea!

Ishidan: captainktainer: The delays in nominating people at Treasury has been Obama's biggest mistake.
Obama's been having a bit of a problem finding an honest politician.

Hrm, wonder why? Those two words existing next to eachother almost just exploded the internet, be careful next time. If I were an economist, I would give my opinion, but I am not. Sounds like the situation is currently something like "soften the blow, buy time, pimp some public works projects, overhaul the regulatory system, and pray to farking god that things start turning around sooner than later". Propping up the banks prevented, from what I understand, complete world economic collapse on a scale never before seen. I like the "let them fail!" people, some people just want to watch the world fall apart. Since we were pretty much responsible for the world economic recession, it is our job to do everything in our power to right the wrong. I think the delay may have been intentional, trying to feel out a bottom to the markets? But yeah, he has farked up a few times, but he admitted it.

The fix is going to have to be something everyone works towards, not just the government. And I think as a whole, society has grown far too lazy and dependent on other people fixing their problems [not just Americans, but everyone].

I think nobody is talking about the obvious because we're all a bit ashamed. That TV, car, vacation, etc... you bought on credit and still haven't paid off? Congrats you're part of the problem. That house you bought which was way beyond the 3x salary range? Congrats, join the line, etc.

People rarely like to be reminded about their personal responsibilities. I'm not fat, it's McDonalds that's unhealthy. I'm not uneducated, it's the schools fault for failing me, I'm not in debt, it's the governments fault for not ensuring I have a job that pays for my extravagent lifestyle.

Obama started on that track during his Joint Congress/Senate speech, but I think he should have gone further.

Sure there are large corporations that have and are farking up. But if it weren't for all the greed of "buy now, think about paying later" people, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today.

cnbc... you would have a million dollars now, if you had just listened to them.

Of course you would have had to start with $10 million.

Timmy 'I can't figure out my own taxes' Geithner was a mistake.
Cut him loose, and start back filling positions like hell.
BO can't afford more flubs

Random Reality Check: I absolutely agree with you, the price of real estate is a major part of why this economy is no longer competitive with the rest of the world.

I think you are confusing the symptom for the disease.

Why is the US economy no longer competitive? Because the US government and the US fed used fiscal policy to increase consumption - which simultaniously made the US uncompetitive.

Real estate prices are just a symptom of that fiscal policy.

Mr Logo: Random Reality Check: I absolutely agree with you, the price of real estate is a major part of why this economy is no longer competitive with the rest of the world.

I think you are confusing the symptom for the disease.

Why is the US economy no longer competitive? Because the US government and the US fed used fiscal policy to increase consumption - which simultaniously made the US uncompetitive.

Real estate prices are just a symptom of that fiscal policy.

Couple of planes fly into buildings in NY? Go shopping says Bush. American dream entitlement mentality is coming to an end. You will now have to earn nice things. Being debt free, I am all for this.

Mr Logo: Random Reality Check: I absolutely agree with you, the price of real estate is a major part of why this economy is no longer competitive with the rest of the world.

I think you are confusing the symptom for the disease.

Why is the US economy no longer competitive? Because the US government and the US fed used fiscal policy to increase consumption - which simultaniously made the US uncompetitive.

Real estate prices are just a symptom of that fiscal policy.

Two sides of the same coin.

However the rise in housing costs started happening long before the US Government and Madison Avenue started feeding the consumption craze.

I believe the Case-Shiller Index is an excellent resource on that one.

Remove all Republicans: randomjsa: not to make things worse with tax raises

How would tax raises make things worse? California is raising taxes, as is New York and a number of other states. In fact, Bill Clinton raised both the capital gains tax and the minimum wage and the economy boomed. Maybe Obama should try that.

You did notice that much like Bush, there was a economic collapse at the end of Clinton's term right? Bill Clinton had nothing to do with the economic boom during his term, nor the collapse at the end of it, and the same goes for Bush as he neither caused the economic boom in the middle nor the crash at the end.

Ever hear of the economic problems of the early and mid 80s? No probably not, because they were fixed...

With tax cuts.

Tax raises during a recession will never help to end a recession. Think about it: If you're bad off financially how would me taking more money away from you, giving you less to spend, help you?

Let's not forget. The November alternative was a 72-year-old who admitted to not knowing much about economics. His top economic advisers were Phil Gramm (possibly the most central figure in the whole mess) and John Thain (of Merill Lynch), and one of them would likely have been Treasury Secretary. His choice for the person to follow him in a crisis was... well... you remember.

Graded on that curve, I'll give Obama a few points.

Remove all Republicans: Bill Clinton raised both the capital gains tax and the minimum wage and the economy boomed. Maybe Obama should try tha

Yes, you're correct: we should consider raising those taxes...

...
...
..
...
.....
...
...

when the economy is booming.

randomjsa: Ever hear of the economic problems of the early and mid 80s? No probably not, because they were fixed...

With tax cuts.

Ah the cult of of Reagan speaks. Of course it is heresy to admit that Reagan cut taxes too much initially and had to go back and raise them. Reagan presided over the largest corporate tax hike in history and followed that by raising payroll taxes. He raised taxes virtually every year he was in office after slashing them the first year.

Now cultists will run around with their hair on fire crying about a Democrat congress but they've overlooked St Reagan's major superpower: the veto.

Reagan talked a great game and people remember the rhetoric. Unfortunately they seem to have forgotten what Reagan actually did.

Dwight_Yeast: when the economy is booming.

The economy wasn't booming when Clinton raised them, that came after.

I should have been an economist. I could work an entire career while accurately predicting the market as well as a orangutan with a dart-board.
A president would never take the advice of a orangutan over that of an actual college-educated person, so maybe I could get hired to help out in that capacity.

On the other hand, they have a hell of a lot more experience at what they do than he has at what he's doing.

The economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks, the paper said.

I don't remember when the stimulus package was passed, four or five weeks into the administration? To my mind this is pretty quick considering the size of the package and the rhetoric from the right. Does the WSJ feel that congressmen had sufficient time to review the plan in advance of voting?

Barry is making this whole thing worse.

jcooli09: Does the WSJ feel that congressmen had sufficient time to review the plan in advance of voting?

Give them a minute do decide which situation would make Obama look worse...

Problem they failed to predict? Watch the movie Maxed Out (2005) which is a documentary style film about the Credit industry. They interviewed one lady that gave a speech to a group of bank chairmen. The point of the speech was, watch the sub-prime market, its going to burst, quit giving loans to people that they know can't pay it. One banker said if they did that they'd lose their major revenue stream (late payment fees). Fark those banks and let them fail. Banking has never been a profitable industry, just prestigious, and not even that anymore.

"Obvious" tag suspiciously missing.

The_Flatline: Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

Haven't you heard? Less regulation, more tax cuts. It'll turn things right around.

A few true patriots in the Senate even introduced their "no-cost stimulus act", also called "Drill More, Tax Less".

A basic macroeconomics lesson for you all...ahem...



GDP is defined as Consumer spending + Investments + Government spending + Net eXports

Now if the economy were running at full speed, we would be seeing GDP = $15 trillion. At the moment, we are seeing about $14 trillion. So in light of this, the Government's plan to add a trillion dollars in new spending looks to be about right. We'll just have to make sure we pay it back later. Hopefully, we'll get it right.

/end snarky econ lesson

Norad: Uh, yeah. Show me ONE person who could actually fix this mess in a month and a half. I'll vote for him.

I love how the posturing some people are doing begs this question, and the only answer is, "Well, the farking Messiah."

And some of the same people call him Obamessiah as a joke.

equilibrium: Dwight_Yeast: when the economy is booming.

The economy wasn't booming when Clinton raised them, that came after.

That's because effect comes some time AFTER cause.

For example: it's March 11, 2009 (new window) and here's some financial news...

Japanese market trades lower on profit taking
3/11/2009 9:06 PM ET

(RTTNews) - Thursday, the Japanese stock market was trading lower on profit taking, following a nearly 5% gain in the previous session. Investors shrugged off upwardly revised data for Japan's gross domestic product for the fourth quarter of 2008 that was released shortly before the market opened.

Of COURSE the raise came after Clinton's moves. If they had come BEFORE, it wouldn't have been caused by Clinton. Would it.

That's the problem with Republicans at the minute. The markets over here have done exactly the same thing (new window)...

NEW YORK (Dow Jones) -- Staples Inc.'s fourth-quarter profit dropped 14% as the recession and the worst jobless rate in over a quarter of a century led to lower demand for bigger-ticket items such as computers and furniture, financial results showed Wednesday.

...yet in the minds of Republicans, the dismal 4th Quarter 2008 earnings (which are affecting share prices this week) are Obama's fault.

Let me draw you a picture, using an analogy: if you started dating a woman that had previously been out with a jerk (a jerk that hit her, so she ended it), and the jerk saw the two of you together and blamed YOU for his actions in hitting the woman before you had met her, what would your reaction be?

Would you admit it, because you have the ability to time-travel and maybe you'll do something in your future / his past? No.

Would you capitulate and admit he may have a point, even if he doesn't? No.

Would you call him a farking idiot, and tell him that's why he's alone right now... because he's not just a jerk, he's a freaking loon? Hell yes.

The Republican Party is now that jerk. And they won't stop acting like that jerk. So as long as they DO keep acting like morons, we will continue to point out HOW they're morons. And if they don't want to be called jerks and morons? They should stop vocally acting like jerks and morons. It's as simple as that.

I say "simple", of course, but many [f]right[ened] wingers on this board have, to a boy, yet to catch on.

cosmos_31: Now if the economy were running at full speed, we would be seeing GDP = $15 trillion. At the moment, we are seeing about $14 trillion. So in light of this, the Government's plan to add a trillion dollars in new spending looks to be about right.

It's not that simple. The point is to fill the gap left by the private sector. If that $1 trillion competes with private investment, the benefit of stimulus is much less. That accounting equation makes government expenditure and investment seem complimentary; that is not always true.