Critical Memo to Obama: Do Something 19 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
TO: Barack Obama
FROM: K.B.
RE: Do Something.
The Honeymoon is over. Although your Administration has yet to be installed – I am advocating a more proactive, aggressive approach concerning the direction of this country. The awkward “there is only one President” rebuttal solves nothing. In actuality, there is no President at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The fractured Republican Party has distanced itself from the unpopular George Bush, while your Administration has proven reluctant to fully engage with the remnants of this tattered group. The void has only exacerbated the confusion gripping the financial community and the U.S. citizenry at-large throughout this debacle.
The veiled panic crystallized in-step with the Hillary Clinton appointment as our country’s next Secretary of State. The Dow Jones Industrial Average continued to deteriorate – plunging through important resistance points as your former adversary was paraded out to America.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was degenerating into a loose cannon. Paulson, Democrat emerged as the champion of an odd mix of spurned Democrats and small government Republicans that have begun to rail against Detroit to the consternation of the investment community.
Treasury Secretary should have been your first appointment.
The immediate selection of Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury would have delivered a bold message towards America concerning your economic vigilance, marginalized the Clinton regime, and downgraded the powers of Mr. Paulson, the lame-duck Treasury official whose contradictory rhetoric has effectively promulgated chaos.
The economy is the top priority. The situation rivals that of the gruesome 1973-1974 recession in terms of job loss, dizzying stock market deterioration, and a paralyzing credit bust. Certainly, your legions of faithful advisers and number crunchers have already briefed you upon the situation. Now, you must brief America with the real tough talk of a President, rather than the Don Quixote pleasantries of the campaign trail.
We recognize that your windfall tax legislation has already been nixed. Next, you must brazenly inform America that the $150 billion alternative energy program is to be drastically reduced, if not shelved indefinitely. These Green investments were to be financed with windfall profit taxes collected from Big Oil.
The ‘windfall’ has evaporated with the furious downdraft of commodity pricing and $1.70 per gallon gasoline. Alternative energy solutions that were not viable at $150 oil are doomed at $50. The United States of America cannot afford to throw billions of tax payer dollars at alternative energy while grappling with a $1 trillion deficit, failing public schools, crumbling infrastructure, and a battered economy.
The matter must be broached delicately to the American Public. Indicate that the issue will be revisited at $100 oil and/or when the United States emerges from today’s economic paralysis. Clearly, Left Coast environmentalists will be disappointed and out-for-blood. The legions of your disparate supporters seeking unrealistic favors are brewing flashpoints that must be addressed immediately, before all authority is undermined.
I am hopeful that a trusted lieutenant will emerge to fall upon the sword.
This is politics.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 19 comments:
Obama hasn't even taken office yet - and although you seem to not know it, it's not his fault that inauguration is on Jan 20. He does not have the power yet to "do something", as you should know.
He has in fact done more in preparing to hit the ground running than any President-elect in recent history at this time during the transition period. People like you demand that he walk on water after giving the Bush-criminals a pass on every failure.
And your absolutely pathetic demand for shelving the $150 billion alternative energy program doesn't become smarter the more you repeat it. In fact, deficit spending for alternative energy is one of the powerful means to finally dig the US out of the mess created by its oil addiction. As fast as the price for oil has plunged it will soar again (in two or three years) - and then people like you will scratch their bald, hollow heads again. Action is needed now.
The oil industry is still vastly higher subsidized than alternative energy - much to the detriment of the planet; it harms my children, and I am pissed.
As to subsidies for new technologies: As you should know, every new major technological shift has been subsidized by the governments: Railroad, cars (through building of roads and highways), nuclear power (oh my), space technology, computer technology (through the military industrial complex), and so forth.
No industry has ever been more deserving and urgently needed than alternative energy, so investing heavily is the right thing to do and long overdue, thanks to the dumbass of a jerk of a president that people like you voted for.
Not one mention in your "memo" of the urgency of curbing greenhouse gases in your commentary! I wonder: Is this thanks to your ignorance or to your affiliation to the carbon industry?
When will people like you learn your lesson? Probably never.
Get. Out. Of. The. Way.
It might just be that things went wrong as whole, and that the people that have been working in the job for 5 years, know how things are running.
If they have a new direction, they might be doing things better than somebody that is just getting into the system.
I do not believ in hire and fire.
"The fractured Republican Party has distanced itself from the unpopular George Bush, while your Administration has proven reluctant to fully engage with the remnants of this tattered group."
Seriously, how can someone pile so much crap into one single sentence?
A) In which way has "the Republican Party" "distanced itself from [...] George Bush"? To be sure: Some Republicans might have distanced themselves from the _person_ George Failure Bush, but how many Republicans have distanced themselves from the root of evil - their failed, rotten ideology? Not one to my knowledge. They still stick to their guns, their beliefs, their lies, their hate, their wars.
B) What do you mean by "your Administration"?
Obama isn't even sworn in yet, therefore no Obama-administration! They are _appointees_ - that's all. As you should know, appointees do not have the power that you seem to dream of.
C) What do you mean by "has proven reluctant to fully engage with the remnants of this tattered group [the fractured Republican Party]"?
In which way should they "fully engage" with these failed fools? If they are "tattered" (as you state) what relevance do they have? Obama, the appointees and the transition team is in fact engaging with the Republicans of the Bush administration that either need to be talked to for all pratical purposes or are worth talking to.
On Dec 16 08:47 AM BusinessConsultant wrote:
> Ok, again a totally useless comment without any merit whatsoever.
>
> Obama hasn't even taken office yet - and although you seem to not
> know it, it's not his fault that inauguration is on Jan 20. He does
> not have the power yet to "do something", as you should know.
>
> He has in fact done more in preparing to hit the ground running than
> any President-elect in recent history at this time during the transition
> period. People like you demand that he walk on water after giving
> the Bush-criminals a pass on every failure.
>
> And your absolutely pathetic demand for shelving the $150 billion
> alternative energy program doesn't become smarter the more you repeat
> it. In fact, deficit spending for alternative energy is one of the
> powerful means to finally dig the US out of the mess created by its
> oil addiction. As fast as the price for oil has plunged it will soar
> again (in two or three years) - and then people like you will scratch
> their bald, hollow heads again. Action is needed now.
>
> The oil industry is still vastly higher subsidized than alternative
> energy - much to the detriment of the planet; it harms my children,
> and I am pissed.
>
> As to subsidies for new technologies: As you should know, every new
> major technological shift has been subsidized by the governments:
> Railroad, cars (through building of roads and highways), nuclear
> power (oh my), space technology, computer technology (through the
> military industrial complex), and so forth.
> No industry has ever been more deserving and urgently needed than
> alternative energy, so investing heavily is the right thing to do
> and long overdue, thanks to the dumbass of a jerk of a president
> that people like you voted for.
>
> Not one mention in your "memo" of the urgency of curbing greenhouse
> gases in your commentary! I wonder: Is this thanks to your ignorance
> or to your affiliation to the carbon industry?
>
> When will people like you learn your lesson? Probably never.
> Get. Out. Of. The. Way.
I did not jump on the bandwagon when he became 'cool.' I support the majority of his policies - but nobody should be put on a pedestal.
The new team has subtly refused to work with outgoing Treasury officials in regards to the basic framework of the TARP.
Also, in today's WSJ on the front page of the Marketplace Section - Toyota is shutting down plans to manufacture the Prius at Tupelo, Ms.
That about sums it up for now...
Never.
Gore / Kerry / Obama = my Presidential Voting record.
(I am only 28).
"I am hopeful that a trusted lieutenant will emerge to fall upon the sword."
I elect YOU!!!
What a spavined,purely political diatribe with little or no facts behind it you just laid out.
"The veiled panic crystallized in-step with the Hillary Clinton appointment as our country’s next Secretary of State. The Dow Jones Industrial Average continued to deteriorate – plunging through important resistance points as your former adversary was paraded out to America"
So once again it's the CLINTONS' [insert sound of deep atonal bass note on a church organ here] who are to blame. When will you Publicans move on? Your tactics of laying all blame on Dems and taking none onto your own shoulders are crystal clear and frankly BORING! Excuse me - who's been in office laying waste to every aspect of government for the past 8 years? This administration has been criminally negligent in every single aspect of governance -the list is too long and too well know for me to trot out again.Get a clue - we all need to work together on this now. In case you haven't noticed it - we're headed for a Depression. It's going to take EVERYONE working as smart and hard as possible to maybe, if we're really lucky, keep this from spiraling into the worst economic disaster we've ever seen.
Look up every bit of information that you can on the T.A.R.P.
You will observe heated wrangling between Pelosi, Paulson, and W over the final $350 Billion.
Who is missing?
Why is the market taking any directives from Paulson and W, when they will be shown the door shortly?
As for my 'lay on the sword' comment - I was alluding to the Secretary of State appointment. The Secretary of State typically takes the fall (EX: Colin Powell).
I do not envision Bill and Hillary (Billary) taking the fall for Barack in response to any gaffe (Everybody makes mistakes). I don't know how I feel about that.
Ironically, Joe Biden would have been perfect for the post.
You'd NEVER know it from what you wrote.....which I kinda like. But still i think you're way off base here.
And yes, the expectation levels for the Obamarama are way too high. But that doesn't stop you from expecting more from him, even though he cannot legally act on any of this.
I'm 57 and I've never seen a president-elect so taking charge as I have seen the Obamster doing. I think the market has been considerably soothed by both his appointments [he's NOT a socialist after all -well wattaya know about that] and his public meetings every day with the press where he is clearly working his ass off to get everything in place for his transition. Compare and contrast to the Bush doctrine - see no evil...do no evil....do nothing.
Glad you voted for Obama. Now give him a chance...he's not even there yet.
On Dec 16 10:53 AM Kofi Bofah wrote:
> Funny. I am being accused of voting for W.
>
> Never.
>
> Gore / Kerry / Obama = my Presidential Voting record.
>
> (I am only 28).
On Dec 16 11:05 AM Kofi Bofah wrote:
> Sorry, I am not a member of the G.O.P.
>
> Look up every bit of information that you can on the T.A.R.P.
>
> You will observe heated wrangling between Pelosi, Paulson, and W
> over the final $350 Billion.
>
> Who is missing?
>
> Why is the market taking any directives from Paulson and W, when
> they will be shown the door shortly?
>
> As for my 'lay on the sword' comment - I was alluding to the Secretary
> of State appointment. The Secretary of State typically takes the
> fall (EX: Colin Powell).
>
> I do not envision Bill and Hillary (Billary) taking the fall for
> Barack in response to any gaffe (Everybody makes mistakes). I don't
> know how I feel about that.
>
> Ironically, Joe Biden would have been perfect for the post.
Kofi,
You will observe heated wrangling between Pelosi, Paulson, and W
> over the final $350 Billion.
>
> Who is missing?
The whole TARP is a friggin mess and none of these people seem qualified to make it work or put forth a program that will........
Everyone is waiting for Obamas' weigh-in, but waiting is unfortunately all that can be done. Let's just hope that it's not too late by the time he is able to act.
Why is the market taking any directives from Paulson and W, when
> they will be shown the door shortly?
Exactly.....except that Barackster has not one iota of legal authority to do anything other than TALK...which he is doing bigtime! And Goergies participation in curtailing this mess seems to be minimal.
The ultimate cry of the gub'mint worshipper, as if only the gub'mint can save the economy. Here's a news flash for ya, the cause(s) of our problems can be traced to the myriad number of times out gub'mint "did something" to help in the last 100 years, regardless of who occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The best 'something' that Obama could do would be to fire 99% of the executive branch so the rest of us can earn a living without being taxed to death or seeing our money squandered on useless, meaningless, and usually counterproductive pork.
"Doing something" has always been the problem, not the solution. It won't be any different this time, IMHO.
Not so. In fact, oil companies already pay an additional "mineral extraction" tax above and beyond the usual corporate taxes paid by every other corporation. One could go look at the "effective tax rates" of oil companies vs. other major corporations, if one could put aside one's politics long enough to do so. I include several for your perusal, in case you have not the "energy or inclination":
As reported on ETrade for TTM (trailing twelve months):
1) BP (British Petroleum) = 35.32%
2) XOM (Exxon Mobil) = 44.42%
3) CVX (Chevron) = 46.02%
4) KO (Coca Cola) = 23.84%
5) WMT (WalMart) = 34.32%
6) INTC (Intel) = 25.48%
7) GS (Goldman Sachs) = 30.32%
Just a small sample, but includes a few of the biggest oil companies, and a few other major-in-their-industr... companies. You'll notice that the least-taxed of the oils pays more taxes than the most-taxed of the non-oils!!
Furthermore, regarding "harms me and my children"...please expound?! I hope you realize all the good and even life-saving products that come to you via the petroleum industry. The obvious one is plastics...and the many items and devices that are made with them. You know, things such as catheters and artificial hearts.
You really should reexamine your liberalism. It flounders quite astonishingly when checked against reality!!
On Dec 16 08:47 AM BusinessConsultant wrote:
(a whole bunch of false tripe)
Ironically, most of the U.S. oil supply comes from regimes that are friendly to the U.S.
42% of petroleum supply is domestic.
18.2% Canada
11.4% Mexico
Out of our top fifteen suppliers, Venezuela at 10% is really the only regime that talks tough against the U.S. And even that is strictly rhetoric (Do you really think that Venezuela will aggressively antagonize its top customer for heavy crude?)
S.A. is funny to me.
1: Some people do not know what they are talking about.
2: Everybody thinks they know what they are talking about.
3: Some people think they know what they talk about - but never offer up one shred of fact - only bluster.
4: If you have played the finance game long enough - you know that when a claim is made and everybody agrees with you, that you are actually in big trouble, my friend.
5: I am certain that somebody will quote this reply and that I will be mocked mercilessly within 10 minutes!
It doesn't matter what politician is in the Whitehouse. Either way, our money gets wasted and government gets enlarged and our constitution gets trashed. Both parties are so similar its ridiculous. Too many Americans are so partisan they can't see past the rhetoric and notice the similarities. Actions speak louder than words.
Government power and control, size and budget AND social programs (medical), have all been increased under the "conservative" Bush. He was never conservative in his actions yet conservative ideologies (which haven't been followed) get the blame. Conservative ideals would never allow the banking system to lower the lending standards to begin with - to overspend, to take on more debt, and more leverage, etc. Democrat bills got passed in order to help lower lending standards to increase home ownership rates among the have-nots. Conservative ideals would never allow the lowering of taxes and the increase of spending at the same time due to the fiscal problems/imbalances it would create. We've been following Keynesian economics all along, except we don't pay stuff down during the good times, so we only use half of Keynes policies - though I wish we wouldn't use any of his policies. We just spend, spend, spend without any fiscal prudence or thought for the future. And Clinton signed NAFTA, not Bush, though he also strongly supports it... There are so many things that show how similar the parties are based on actions on economic/financial issues, it's just ridiculous. Bush tried to implement a crackdown on no-money-down, interest only mortgages but backed off due to all the political pressure from the Dems. Both sides have big skeletons that contributed to this problem. Both parties were in favour of the bailouts! Both! Yet here we are, pointing fingers at each other, country divided. We need to sit down and realize that neither party is innocent and they are in fact almost the same on most of the major economic/fiscal issues. Yes, there are some differences on social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc), but those are issues they use to divide us. And all we can come up with is "do something" and "spend more" to fix the economy!?!?!?! That's how we got to where we are! We "did something" and "spent more". That's how we turned the greatest and richest nation on earth into the biggest debtor nation on Earth in such a short time.
Why is it that most people think government can save them? If you go out and take on big mortgages you can't afford and sign contracts without reading the small print, not even government can save you from yourself. If you go out and buy consumer items you don't need and run a credit card to its limits, not even government can save you. A fool and his money are soon parted and this has nothing to do with what party is in power. Now why should people bail these retards out? But both parties are in favour of bailouts.
Why is it that most people act like one man can make or break the entire nation? We don't elect a dictator for 4 years, do we? I was under the assumption that there was a balance of power within the government? Last I checked, not even the evil Bush could pass much without support from others...
So far Obama has promised to spend money. I believe him. He'll spend. Don't worry. He will do as you please. Spend more money is the order of the day. Many don't think Bush has spent enough money on enough programs obviously, so we'll spend some more. If you think spending government money is so great, you should be praising Bush for his preemptive stimulus to help the economy. Somehow I don't think it's helped so far... and I don't think further government spending will work as well as planned.
Obama and Bush are between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy either. Bush will get all the blame, even blame for things which he didn't do. Obama will have the weight of the world upon his shoulders (that might make for a good cartoon if there are any cartoonists out there!) and be expected to save the planet from man made financial catastrophe in lightning quick speed. Neither of them are superhero's... They are but mere mortal men.
On Dec 16 01:49 PM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:
> "The oil industry is still vastly higher subsidized than alternative
> energy - much to the detriment of the planet; it harms my children,
> and I am pissed."
>
> Not so. In fact, oil companies already pay an additional "mineral
> extraction" tax above and beyond the usual corporate taxes paid by
> every other corporation. One could go look at the "effective tax
> rates" of oil companies vs. other major corporations, if one could
> put aside one's politics long enough to do so. I include several
> for your perusal, in case you have not the "energy or inclination":
>
>
> As reported on ETrade for TTM (trailing twelve months):
> 1) BP (British Petroleum) = 35.32%
> 2) XOM (Exxon Mobil) = 44.42%
> 3) CVX (Chevron) = 46.02%
> 4) KO (Coca Cola) = 23.84%
> 5) WMT (WalMart) = 34.32%
> 6) INTC (Intel) = 25.48%
> 7) GS (Goldman Sachs) = 30.32%
>
> Just a small sample, but includes a few of the biggest oil companies,
> and a few other major-in-their-industr... companies. You'll notice
> that the least-taxed of the oils pays more taxes than the most-taxed
> of the non-oils!!
>
> Furthermore, regarding "harms me and my children"...pleas... expound?!
> I hope you realize all the good and even life-saving products that
> come to you via the petroleum industry. The obvious one is plastics...and
> the many items and devices that are made with them. You know, things
> such as catheters and artificial hearts.
>
> You really should reexamine your liberalism. It flounders quite astonishingly
> when checked against reality!!
>
> (a whole bunch of false tripe)
Wait a second...did you say plastic is "good"? Good in the sense that it never biodegrades, and that it is causing the feminization of the male race? Or "good" because there is a floating mass of the stuff the size of the United States in the middle of our once pristine oceans? I cringe every time I have to tear through layers of fossilized plastic in order to get to a purchased product. Even things that definitely don't need to be wrapped in plastic are encased in the stuff. Use once and throw away....how is this "good"?
I don't think we should get rid of catheters and artificial hearts, but I do think there should be an awful lot more regulation of what the plastic producers are pushing on the public. In Europe the manufacturers are responsible for the entire life-cycle of their products, which cuts alot of the senseless waste.
But if you really want to consider this issue; why not face the real reason that everything is individually wrapped and packaged in this most destructive material? It has to do with the frenzied pace of modern life, and the women who once had all day to shop ( at the corner butcher shop and general store, where meat was wrapped in paper, and most items were made of biodegradable cloth and wood.) and cook who are now giving all their time and energy to perpetuate a system that was created by men and is not in any way conducive to the cyclical rythym of nature, but is entirely separate and disconnected from it.
Lest you think I am a new ager or a radical feminist, I will say that I'm emphatically NOT. Actually I'm a very modern and pragmatic person, yet I'm often aware of the tragic nature of modern life. Yes, our standard of living has increased....but at what cost? Things move so fast now and are so separate from the very environment that supports us, that we hardly notice the ruin we are causing by our constant search for the newest, most ergonomic, most fashionable stuff.
Sometimes I wonder if hurtling into the future without any sense of what we are really here on this earth to do is going to lead to our ultimate demise. I hope not, but when I hear how some people consider petroleum products "good" without in any way considering the wreckage we're leaving behind for future generations to deal with I wonder.