Obama's Speech Struck the Right Tone 33 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Phew, what a speech! Some 6,000 words in total -- that's a monster. And I think that Obama struck just the right tone: while I didn't like his promise to cut the budget deficit in half -- I think it's the kind of goal which is doomed to failure -- I do like some of the specifics in this speech, especially as regards cap-and-trade and agricultural subsidies.
I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America...
We have already identified two trillion dollars in savings over the next decade.
In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them.
Towards the end of the election campaign, Obama hinted that a cap-and-trade program might be one of the priorities pushed back by the exigencies of the economic crisis: I'm happy to see that's not the case. And the idea that the US might unilaterally end a lot of agricultural subsidies is just something I never thought I'd ever see -- and frankly this is no more than a very positive sign: I'll believe it when I see it.
The message on banks, however, remains confused:
We will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.
What does this actually mean? Well, first of all we can cut out some of the excess verbiage:
We will ensure that the major banks have enough money to lend even in more difficult times. When we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will clean up their balance sheets.
The "even in more difficult times" is a reference to the famous stress test, which remains something of a chimera. As for the cleaning-up of the balance sheets, your guess is as good as mine. Does buying mandatory convertible preferred shares constitute cleaning up a balance sheet? I don't think it does, given that those shares are going to live on the liability side of the balance sheet, and their existence there will do nothing to either reduce banks' liabilities or to place a floor underneath the value of their assets.
So the plan for America's banks is as vague as ever, unfortunately, and nationalization, despite its seeming inevitability, remains the Word That No Politician Dare Utter. The only hint of it comes in the bit about "holding accountable those responsible" -- something which implies that the government is in control of the banks. But what that means in practice, I reckon, has yet to be decided.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
TraderMark
-
2
David Fry
-
3
Peter Schiff
-
4
Ashraf Laidi
-
5
Philip Davis
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
Top
StockTalkers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
Cliff Wachtel
-
3
Mike Havrilla
-
4
David White
-
5
Hedged In
Top StockTalkers » -
1
I was listening to Bloomberg UK. They had an economist talking about the ridiculous regressive tax system in America. He said it is ludicrous the low taxes that the wealthy have to pay here and he threw in, "For doing relatively little".
Watching Obama and Jindal last night reminded me of the old Stealers Wheel song by Gerry Rafferty.....
Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
On the one hand I get the Clown Prince of Socialists telling me that all we need to do is trust the government and pool all of our collective tax dollars together for Universal Everything and it will be alright down the road.
Then I get the Cornucopian Romantic Joker who says we can do anything even though we no longer have cheap oil, domestic manufacturing, a cohesive culture inculcated in American Ideals based on the Constitution and a shared sense of Patriotism; only that romantic notion that somehow if the Government got TOTALLY out of our way then the better angels of our nature would spring forth to never let another Madoff, Mortgage, Derivative, Bankster-born Ponzi Scheme happen again.
The Socialist Dream is dead.
The Radical Libertarian dream is dead.
Freedom loving people will always chafe and suffer under socialism.
At the same time give too much freedom to faulty human beings and we will find some way to hang ourselves like we have done over the last 25 years.
In order to be free, there must be responsibility and prudent precautions. Unfortunately we have elected 485 (Representatives and Senators) clowns and jokers who either believe in total subjugation by government or total cowboy free-market chaos.
But hey.....they come from us don't they.
So I guess....along with a dwindling number of you guys....we are surrounded by close to.....
150 million clowns to the left of me
150 million jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
Why don't you right wingers get honest with yourselves and the rest of us.
It's strange "Wall Street" never asked for any details from Bush and Paulson. Their was a total lack of transparency under Paulson yet I didn't hear any right wing pundits flapping their gums. You seemed to cheer when he just handed out 350 billion with absolutely no strings attached. I actually think these right wingers want Obama to just buy these toxic assets at the tax payers expense, leaving the banks off scot free. Then they can gut the government even further and argue for gutting the poor and SS and medicare recipients. That's what right wingers are for.
Food that is tainted- a ceo pal of Bush who sends out peanut products that he knows is tainted with Salmonella. People die yet we cannot prosecute him because GOP has written laws that protect corporations and their CEOS. Republicans are sick, sick people. The sooner they wither on their hypocritical vine, the better.
Don't call it a hidden tax on everything in the American economy that raises every American's taxes, instead call it a 'market-based cap on carbon pollution'. Yeah, that's the ticket.
And don't promise to cut all farm subsidies, or then you won't get to pick the political winners and losers -- you'd be giving up important clout. Instead, promise to end such subsidies only to those who "don't need them". Who doesn't need such subsidies? Why any farm state politician who crosses you, that's who.
And keep up the ruse about "good energy" and "bad energy". Bad energy is cheap and gov't actually has to erect hurdles to keep it expensive. Good energy is the kind gov't actually has to underwrite. You see that way, we get to pick the winners and losers.
Manipulating a country is very hard work, but making it sound like you're not doing so is even harder work.
> He talks about the $15.00 in every pay check like it will
> really make a difference. The man is a joke.
The stimulus bill alone (counting interest) spends more than $3,000 per American -- $12,000 of debt for a family of four. And in return we get an extra $15 per paycheck? How are we ever going to dig out of the hole he is putting us in? It's real easy to spend other people's money. Apparently, it's even easier to spend other children's and grandchildren's money. They don't vote!
> The american people Need a new DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
> AGAINST OBAMA AND CONGRESS
There are "tea parties" being held across the nation this week. Be there and protest the madness.
On Feb 25 05:47 AM nobodyintexas wrote:
> Jesus the guy Obama couldn't do any worse than what we
> have had in the past
I expect you are quite wrong on this score. This kind of massive spending is going to really hurt and ailing economy.
> iF jINDALL is the future of the Republican Party, looks like they
> have a future even more out of touch and delusion than the last eight
> years. This guy looks and talks like a zombie. I would not say intelligence
> was his strong suit.
Funny, I thought he sounded very intelligent. But then, I've never understood why people like Obama. He strikes me as an empty suit. I just don't get him. Whatever gene it is that make Obama seem like "The One" -- I don't have it.
> The GOP's constant bashing of the Federal government
> is ludicrous. Bottom line. The federal government doesn't work well
> when it's run by crooks and incompetents. ie. Bush and Company.
Explain exactly what corruption the Bush administration committed? Argue that Bush was incompetent, okay. But crooked? There is no evidence. That is an unsupportable ad hominem attack.
> I should throw in liars as well. Good riddens to this heartless bunch.
How dare you call Bush heartless! The man funneled $billions to help AIDS victims in Africa when no other country would lift a finger. You don't know what you're talking about.
His faith-based initiatives made sure that gov't money got to people in the trenches rather than gov't bureaucrats -- he raised funding and got more use out of the money that was spent. You don't know what you're talking about.
And what were his alleged lies? After listening to the lies of Bill Clinton, which were blatant and frequent, Bush was a shining example of honesty. And Obama has already reneged on several of his campaign promises, calling them "campaign rhetoric" (translation: "I just said that to get elected, I didn't mean it").
Argue that Bush was incompetent, that he claimed to be a conservative, but spent like a Democrat, that his policies were misguided. OK, I might not agree, but these are arguable. To call him heartless or a liar is bunk.
> what in the world was Jindal trying to say in his nonsense about
> Katrina??? Just another right wing Tax cutter for the wealthy,<br/>
Let me explain it, since you are clueless. The Democratic governor of LA was incompetent and did not prepare for the disaster of Katrina. She did a horrible job of mopping up afterwards. Years after Katrina, the state had not rebuilt and rebuilding plans languished, rebuilding funds went unspent. Jindal came in and got things going.
And what's wrong with being right wing? You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm proud to be right wing. Are you proud to be left wing? Do you commonly refer to yourself as left wing?
And what's wrong with cutting taxes for the wealthy? I don't know about you, but I don't know many paupers who start businesses and put other people to work. At least, wealthy people pay taxes (Daschle and Geithner, excepted). Poor people pay very little of their share.
> I was listening to Bloomberg UK. They had an economist talking about
> the ridiculous regressive tax system in America. He said it is ludicrous
> the low taxes that the wealthy have to pay here and he threw in,
> "For doing relatively little".
Wealthy people pay most of the federal income tax. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of all taxes. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in taxes in 2004. Overall between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending. These are the policies of "heartless" Bush -- making rich people pay for poor people.
> bunch of hypocrites. and please, stop the nonsense about GOP being
> fiscally responsible. I mean, you had a moron running our country
> for 8 years. He spent a trillion on an uneccessary war with no bid
> contracts to companies where billions of our dollars are missing.
> The GOP congress refused to perform oversight. The GOP congress spent
> like drunken sailors while gutting every regulatory agency in sight
It's hard to dispute that the GOP Congress spent money like drunken sailors, but then the Democratic Congresses have not improved the situation -- they have worsened it. And the latest spending bill will spend more in a shorter period of time than the cost of the Iraq War. So, bad as the GOP were, they were better than what we have now by a long shot.
You could argue that the Dem Party has its share of cretins (note the correct spelling -- Cretans come from the Island of Crete).
The GOP did not "gut every regulatory agency in sight". In fact, they strengthened the agency overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and uncovered the accounting fraud there. Meanwhile, Dems (mostly) in Congress stopped tougher regulation of these agencies. Yes Democrats stopped the regulating of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bush administration tried 17 different times to regulate them and were defeated by Democrats.
Meanwhile, these GSEs were buying up toxic assets, claiming that they were "conforming" even though the borrowers had put little or no equity down. Then "bang", the bubble burst and Bush wrongly got the blame -- and those who had obstructed regulation ascended in Congress and touted the lie that it was Bush who had caused the bubble. See YouTube watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4 "Burning Down the House" for C-SPAN evidence. See Barney Frank saying, "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing". He said it. A Democratiic Congressman blocked regulation.
You say the war was unnecessary. I say it was. Bush was President it was his decision and Congress from both parties backed him. You might be right. Bush might have been right. What you state as fact is arguable.
Now you're blaming all Republicans for peanut salmonella? Don't you think that's a stretch?
> GOP are a
> bunch of hypocrites. and please, stop the nonsense about GOP being
> fiscally responsible. I mean, you had a moron running our country
> for 8 years. He spent a trillion on an uneccessary war with no bid
> contracts to companies where billions of our dollars are missing.
> The GOP congress refused to perform oversight. The GOP congress spent
> like drunken sailors while gutting every regulatory agency in sight
> including those that protect the safety of our food and envirornment.
> Republicans are third world cretans. They are out of the dark ages
> and should return and leave the rest of us-the decent thinking people
> alone. All Bush did for 8 years was give tax breaks to the super
> wealthy as the super wealthy cheated and gutted the American people-
> credit cards, fraudulent loans, cable companies where you pay a fortune
> and get nothing in return.
> Food that is tainted- a ceo pal of Bush who sends out peanut products
> that he knows is tainted with Salmonella. People die yet we cannot
> prosecute him because GOP has written laws that protect corporations
> and their CEOS. Republicans are sick, sick people. The sooner they
> wither on their hypocritical vine, the better.
The issue is how you implement these changes. I frankly don't think that the congressional members of either party have the leadership ability, commitment, or intellectual capability to understand the vision and rationally come to a means of implementing it.
Did you look at the audience? This isn't a congress this is a high priced retirement home. Half of them looked like they were either comatose or dead.
I have zero confidence he will be successful getting the broader vision implemented in any form. The entire congress is dis-functional.
Too bad think of what it could do for the economy.
On that note consider the dichotomy of America George Washington Carver and Peanut Corporation of America makes it apparent there are several ways to skin a cat and still call it a cat, but cat calling is not one of them.
What is interesting is thoughtful discussion of the merits and problems, no one is interested in the meaningless political wonk of those who choose not to inform themselves before they spew.
I'm pleasantly amazed about Obama willing to talk about ending agri-subsidies, although of course he had to put it in "agri-business" class-struggle terms. I'd love to see him make this happen.
Cap-and-trade on CO2 has proven to be a joke in Europe. There are too many ways for government corruption and "special favors" to work into such a system. A carbon emission tax would be far more effective, especially if combined with effective building of nuclear fission power plants.
The "hardest working" is a silly phrase. The US is rich because of our high level of economic freedom and the production and innovation that comes from that. Personally I am pretty sure that I don't work "harder" than a subsistence farmer in Africa!
When I saw him responding to the crisis in Louisiana during Gustav I was impressed. He seemed on top of things and well organized. It was sad to see him fall flat on his face last night.
Unfortunately his backing of teaching Intelligent Design in schools, and his early writings on demonic possession make it very hard for me to believe that he belongs as a serious candidate for President or Vice President. This is the 21st century where we can't afford this sort of stuff.
Another item that causes some concern is his high level of participation in earmark pork while a member of the House of Representatives. 14th out of the entire congress according to one accounting. That is not walking the talk.
On Feb 25 01:05 PM Mr. Econotarian wrote:
> Jindall doesn't believe in evolution, if he is that screwed up on
> the science of bioogy, how am I supposed to believe that he has any
> clue about the science of economics?
>
> I'm pleasantly amazed about Obama willing to talk about ending agri-subsidies,
> although of course he had to put it in "agri-business" class-struggle
> terms. I'd love to see him make this happen.
>
> Cap-and-trade on CO2 has proven to be a joke in Europe. There are
> too many ways for government corruption and "special favors" to work
> into such a system. A carbon emission tax would be far more effective,
> especially if combined with effective building of nuclear fission
> power plants.
>
> The "hardest working" is a silly phrase. The US is rich because
> of our high level of economic freedom and the production and innovation
> that comes from that. Personally I am pretty sure that I don't work
> "harder" than a subsistence farmer in Africa!
Jindal is smart. The media is attempting to palinize him now, but he is very smart. Whether his style is as appealing as Obama's is not something I can judge, because I am deaf and blind to style and I focus on the meaning of a person's words.
On Feb 25 03:33 PM bricki wrote:
> Jindal's response was extraordinarily week in comparison to Obama's
> speech. He seemed very poorly prepared for the national limelight.
> Both the content of the presentation and the delivery were poor.
>
>
> When I saw him responding to the crisis in Louisiana during Gustav
> I was impressed. He seemed on top of things and well organized. It
> was sad to see him fall flat on his face last night.
>
> Unfortunately his backing of teaching Intelligent Design in schools,
> and his early writings on demonic possession make it very hard for
> me to believe that he belongs as a serious candidate for President
> or Vice President. This is the 21st century where we can't afford
> this sort of stuff.
>
> Another item that causes some concern is his high level of participation
> in earmark pork while a member of the House of Representatives. 14th
> out of the entire congress according to one accounting. That is not
> walking the talk.
>
> On Feb 25 01:05 PM Mr. Econotarian wrote: