Why Economists Have Downgraded Obama to Bush-Plus

Time flies on the Ron Smith show… it was supposed to be one hour yesterday, but he asked me to stay for two. The topic of conversation changed as well; we were going to talk about Greenspan’s editorial and how economists did not like Obama and Geithner’s performance so far. Instead, because the Madoff news broke, we talked about that and a flurry of other issues in our broken economy.

It was fun, and Ron is a very bright guy. We seem to have good chemistry, and that is one reason that I go to the studio rather than do it by phone. Eye contact is worth a lot; it aids our ability to interact. I will also say that our conversations off the air are very stimulating.

But that brings me to tonight’s topic. We did talk about Greenspan’s editorial briefly, but we never got to talk about the WSJ article, Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists. That’s what I would like to address now.

Geithner and Obama got scores of 51 and 59 from the economists on a scale of 100. Why might they have scored them this way?

• The response has been slow.
• The proposals are vague.
• The proposals aren’t big enough.
• The proposals are too big.
• The bills are a crazy quilt of misbegotten earmarks.
• The White House/Treasury hasn’t appointed the undersecretaries necessary to help Geithner. What kind of incompetence during a crisis is this?
• The effects of these proposals are too uncertain.

Now, Ben Bernanke received a much more favorable reception from the economists, with a score of 71. Why the higher and different score?

• Economists favor other economists — there is a bias toward those that understand the profession, whether they are competent or not.
• They believe that Bernanke understands the Great Depression well, so he must have the right answers.
• Bernanke is basically following the lead of Friedman and Keynes as he approaches these problems. His actions are a test of neoclassical and Keynesian macroeconomics.
• He acted quickly, even if it had no significant effect on the crisis.

Economists are loath to repudiate themselves. They defend their discipline, even when it is tough to do. Americans, by their nature, prefer action to inaction. It is one of our failings. So it is with the economists, and even more so. They presume that some level of action with monetary or fiscal policy will get the economy out of the jam that we have self-manufactured.

Now, there is a broader question to ask, and it is, “Should economists be questioning Obama and Geithner, or should it be vice versa? After all, the economics profession has not distinguished itself in the last two years. Those that have gotten it right (like me and others) have been fringe elements in economics. The Neoclassical school is in shambles, and now the Keynesians take the field in an effort to prove that they are right. Both will fail, in my opinion.

Neoclassical economics, the dominant paradigm, does not understand how financial markets affect the economy. The Keynesians assume that financial markets affect the economy, but that the effects are haphazard due to the “animal spirits” (irrationality) of businessmen. With all of the advice from economists, you would think we would be closer to a solution by now, but due to disagreements, that is not the case.

As it is now, those that voted for Obama wanted change, but have ended up with an economic approach to the crisis that is basically Bush-plus. Do everything that the Bush, Jr. Administration was doing, but do it bigger, with many earmarks peripheral to economic stimulus, but dear to Democratic constituencies. Much of that money will be wasted and do little good for the economy.

But if only Nixon could go to China, if only Clinton could do NAFTA and welfare reform (with his arm twisted), if only Bush, Jr. could promise compassionate conservatism and deliver the Iraq war and spend like a maniac, then perhaps Obama could surprise us too. I don’t care for his policies, but he is a bright guy. Perhaps he could see past the the Neoclassical and Keynesian economists and choose something totally different. Unlikely, though, because of all the economists appointed to different areas of his administration, many of whom have big reputations and egos.

This piece from the Washington Post spells out the situation well. It looks like a “too many cooks spoil the broth" situation, where heavyweights neutralize each other, pulling in different directions favoring their own personal theories. Odds are that leads to delay, and compromise solutions that do little good for the economy.

So, watch the current melange of policies continue, generating little positive effect on the economy.

Comments

[mediapro:]

Funny.

As I was reading your diatribe, I was imagining that yours was an analysis of the Bush years:

"...he doesn't have the credentials to tackle..."

"...he appears to have no control over his party, or for that matter the government..."

"Broken campaign promises, contentless speeches, and ill-spoken comments on subjects he appears to have little knowledge."

"His spending proposed budget and deficit are the largest ever."

Etc.

On one point I do agree:

We MAY survive Friedmanomics only if the Obama team can successfully decouple its policy from the lunacy of the Chicago School. As for Obamanomics, I'll need a bit more than eight weeks in office to see if that decoupling is possible.


On Mar 13 07:31 PM ED K wrote:

> We are getting the policies of a lawyer dealing with econmomic woes
> that he does'nt have the credentials to tackle,compounded by allowing
> Pelosi and Reid to run the show.He appears to have no control of
> his own party or for that matter the government.His leutenants seem
> to be almost opposed to each other in their thinking of how to solve
> our crisis.Broken campaign promises,contentless speeches and ill
> spoken comments on subjects that he appears to have little knowledge
> of are causing an erosion in his popularity.He has been critisized
> by democrats,republicans and especially economists with regards to
> his performance thus far.His pending proposed budget and deficit
> are the largest ever.It contains many new programs that should'nt
> even be considered during a recession and it does'nt look like it
> has anything to do with solving our deteriating economy.If you believe
> your taxes are'nt going to increase you have been duped.when the
> list of new and increased taxes on everything we use comes out you'll
> realize,as I do now, you've been had.If we survive Obama-nomics it'll
> be a miracle.

Mar 15 05:11 PM

[BARBI520:]

PLEASE PLEASE. Provide a link to the actual poll. I want to see the methodology. I want to se the questions, the answers, the margin of error. Who writes a supposed news story and does not provide the actual poll. We don't even know the name of the poll or the polling agency who conducted it.If I can't have access to the poll, I have to conclude the writer is making stuff up and his article is just worthless nonsense. NO well known economist that I have seen has given Obama a failing grade. This is just more right wing nonsense

Mar 15 05:29 PM

[stark naked:]

Are these the same economists who have been doing such a great job of calling the economy these last few years! man they sure know what they are doing!

Mar 15 06:49 PM

[flashrob:]

Here's how to get started FIXING THE ECONOMY QUICKLY with REALITY POTENTIAL!

PART I

1.Rescind “Mark to Market” accounting. Mark to Market Accounting is mostly used by BIG INVESTMENT BANKS TO VALUE the DERIVATIVE PORTION of their ASSETS (like CDO'S, etc.) This means this kind of asset IN BAD TIMES is highly DELEVERAGED and might be worth .10 cents on the dollar in the speculating global financial markets. However, in reality the underlying home mortgage might be worth .60 cents on the dollar in the REAL WORLD MARKET of people actually pricing a home purchase. So, rescinding MARK TO MARKET ACCOUNTING would immediately allow big banks to GREATLY INCREASE THEIR ASSET VALUES on their books. The result is THESE BIG BANKS would no longer be in DESPERATE FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES...and WOULD NOT NEED MUCH GOVERNMENT/TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE.

These LARGE INVESTMENT BANKS would SURPRISINGLY prefer to STAY WITH “MARK TO MARKET” ACCOUNTING... WHY? Because the government has promised not to “let them go under” and so they get “TENS OF BILLIONS” in YOUR TAX DOLLARS...because of an “accounting oversight!” THEY ONLY NEED MONEY BECAUSE OF THIS RULE!

BUT WHY WOULD THEY PREFER TO HAVE “MARK TO MARKET” RULES CONTINUE. Because if THEIR ASSETS ARE IMMEDIATELY revalued upward, those assets would be jelled to MORE STABLE REAL WORLD VALUES in a one-time accounting rule change. Now, these big investment banks like to gamble (like with derivatives, etc. on the global mkts) and IF THEIR ASSET VALUES WERE LESS FLUID...THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE “HUGE GAINS” in the event of a sustained recovery because of LEVERAGED SPECULATION in the FUTURES MKTS.

So, they want to GO BACK TO THE CRAPS TABLES, AND THE GOV POLICIES ARE FUNDING THEM SO THAT THEY CAN DO THIS.

On the other hand, if their asset values are “less fluid” by rescinding “mark to market” accounting their assets will go up and they will be out of financial trouble for NOW...but as Real Estate declines and foreclosures continue (MOSTLY DUE TO JOB LOSS), those SAME ASSET VALUES will GO DOWN (but slowly) making them ultimately a LESS ATTRACTIVE INVESTMENT...as they will not be attractive to speculators on the derivatives markets, because THEIR ASSETS ARE NOT VERY FLUID. So, what's really at stake here IS NOT BIG INVESTMENT BANKS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS ...but Washington worried about declines in the STOCK PRICES of these BIG INSTITUTIONS (remember the gov can keep them alive even with “mark to mkt,” so, obviously they can keep them alive a couple years down the road, as their stock prices continue to deteriorate...
The banks prefer to have the chance of RETURNING TO HIGHLY LEVERAGED BIG TIME GAINS IN THE THE FUTURES MKTS. Meaning they want to GO BACK TO BUBBLE PROFITS!
Rescinding “mark to mkt” would force them to only have the potential to make modest conservative profits, and they and their buddies don't want that. They got to much greed for that!

Just, Washington protecting their “buddies” on Wall St. is how this looks to me. Not, everyone in Washington, though. Look at who supports “mark to marketing” and who is AGAINST IT. Those against “mark to market” and in favor of rescinding it ARE THE GOOD GUYS in my opinion!

PART II

OK, supposing we RESCIND “MARK TO MARKET!” WHAT HAPPENS?

Well, the first thing THE BIG INVESTMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS suddenly are not in SUCH BAD FINANCIAL SHAPE. THEY NO LONGER NEED MUCH GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE!

Now, those HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS CAN “GO BACK TO THE TAXPAYER” (NOT WALL ST.) TO FUND A RECOVERY PLAN WITH SOME REAL POTENTIAL AND IMMEDIATE RELIEF for the INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER, those who have lost their jobs, and those who are in danger of losing their jobs.

HERE'S HOW IT WOULD GO:

AN IMMEDIATE LARGE TAX REFUND FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008 TO ALL INDIVIDUALS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 50%!!! (LADDERED A BIT MORE TO THOSE AT LOWER INCOME LEVELS)

BUT: THE TAX REFUND WOULD BE GIVEN IN THE FORM OF TREASURY COUPONS with specific purchase designations and TIME LIMITS. These refunds would not be able to be used for SAVINGS, etc.

for example: a coupon might be good for 20% credit toward the purchase of a new car, and/or have the option of being used to pay down your Credit Cards. You would not be able to pay off your Credit Cards in a lump sum, but might be allowed to double your minimum monthly payment. You could also use some to pay down your mortgage, and this would be variable depending on whether you had, for example, lost your job. The idea is the Income Tax Refund Coupons HAVE TO BE USED IN CERTAIN WAYS WITHIN CERTAIN PERIODS OF TIME. The details to do such a thing are not very complicated (I could do it in less that a week, so I'm sure the Gov can.)

Essentially, this results in a HUGE IMMEDIATE INFLOW OF CASH INTO ALMOST ALL BIZ AND SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY BY ALMOST ALL TAXPAYERS, THEREBY SHORING UP MOST OF THE CONSUMER ECONOMY TO FURTHER STEM DOWNSIZING AND JOBLOSS IN MOST BUSINESSES AND SECTORS.

THIS IS NOT “PIE IN THE SKY” INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS that require MUCH STUDY, AND RETRAINING OF THE WORKFORCE.

WE NEED QUICK HELP...THE BOAT OF THE ECONOMY IS SINKING FAST...WE CAN'T SPEND OUT TIME/MONEY REDESIGNING THE NEXT BOAT...THE ONE “WE ARE IN” IS SINKING AND TAKING ON MORE WATER AS WE DEBATE, ETC.!!!

So, forget Wall St. and THINK ABOUT “MAINSTREET!” ...AND NOW!

The big financials are GOING TO LOSE ANYWAY, MARK TO MARKET OR NOT, THE WORLD ECONOMY WILL CONTINUE TO DECLINE, AS WELL AS REAL ESTATE AND JOB LOSS, THE DAYS OF THE BIG FINANCIALS AND HIGH PROFIT SPECULATION ON DERIVATIVES IS FINISHED, OVER, KAPUT, THEIR ASSETS WILL ONLY CONTINUALLY DECLINE – QUICKLY UNDER “MARK TO MKT” RULES OR SLOWLY IF YOU RESCIND “MARK TO MKT!'
... KEEP THEM ALIVE OF COURSE, but DON'T STAKE THEM FOR MORE GAMBLING!

BUT, IF WE RESCIND “MARK TO MKT” THE ECONOMY HAS SOME CHANCE TO START COMING BACK FOR REAL BY FUNDING THE CONSUMER, INSTEAD OF WALL ST!

FLASHROB

Mar 15 07:24 PM

[Allan Hughes:]

I can't seem to find either the participants in the survey or results for past surveys or even the questions. Without any of this information its impossible to determine if the participants have any qualifications to assess Obama's policy decisions.

The fact that the survey participants have misjudged the current recession doesn't exactly inspire any trust.

My hunch, and only a hunch, is that the survey was of conservative friendly economists.

Mar 15 07:41 PM

[TCK:]

So far Obama's plan has been to blame Bush, blame republicans, blame Wall Street, blame bankers, and bame Limbaugh. Obama was attacking Bush and running for president for two years while in Congress. Seems like he could come up with smething better than, "Due to the mismanagement of the last eight years . . " !

Also hard to always hear, "inherited crisis " regarding a job he volunteered for "

Mar 15 07:51 PM

[longtimehr:]

this article is utterly rediculous, the man has only been in office going on a few months and now the so called experts are rediculing him for ruining the economy, if the bushmonger was still in office we would be invading iran and pakistan right now, now thats what I call a miserable failure.

Mar 15 08:20 PM

[MattZN:]

How do you know there's been no significant effect on the crisis? For all we know if the government had not acted at all our entire economic system would have failed.

And, for that matter, why do people keep believing that the stimulus should have an instant effect? Is it going to magically solve the jobs problem THIS WEEK? No, of course not. So stop believing the nonsense and prognosticating on the effectiveness of policies which aren't expected to actually have an effect for months or longer. Start getting realistic.

Frankly, I do not see any of the nay-sayers putting forth an even remotely realistic alternative plan. Their ideas are a thousand times more vague then Obama's actions. You don't have to like Obama's plan but only a complete idiot would follow the advice of the pundits on T.V. and expect it to actually work.

-Matt

Mar 15 09:16 PM

[Gob:]

Just wait until all the dummies who voted for President Affirmative Action in hopes of a tax cut see their energy prices double due to cap and trade.

Forget the rhetoric - everyone is getting a stealth tax increase. Uhhhhhbama already stuck it to the poor by whacking them with a 65 cents a pack tax increase on cigarettes.

Who mostly smokes cigarettes? Lower income folks.

Mar 16 03:02 AM

[Gob:]

You know what I call an miserable failure? Someone who can't spell "ridiculous."

Geez, the site even puts a red underline beneath it for you, jackass.

On Mar 15 08:20 PM longtimehr wrote:

> this article is utterly rediculous, the man has only been in office
> going on a few months and now the so called experts are rediculing
> him for ruining the economy, if the bushmonger was still in office
> we would be invading iran and pakistan right now, now thats what
> I call a miserable failure.

Mar 16 03:10 AM

[ChrisC613:]

Well the American work ethic sucks... we are lazy as hell and depend on other people for anything other than higher technical thinking. And yes it is nice that China holds 1 trillion in bonds or else we would have 1 trillion less to pay for schools and other public services, itll just suck when they all mature. Also Wall Street is what gives many of us our living standard we love, if they didnt create so much money floating around then they wouldnt spend it and we wouldnt have it to spend on ourselves... so they may not exactly care about us but they support us. And this whole thing was caused by trying to make everyone equal... saying that we should all have the option of owning a home, even the people who really cant pay for one.


On Mar 14 01:34 AM theblueamerican wrote:

> President Obama has been in office for a little over 50 days. He
> has inherited a country so mismanaged by the previous administration.
> Two years ago Americans started waking up to the debacle that was
> going on. Wall Street and the Main Street Media think he has a magic
> wand and all will be well. Talk about living in a fantasy. I love
> America and capitalism. The free and fair market is a great economic
> system for this country to hang it's hat on. But why does Wall Street
> need to be so disconnected from Main Street. Isn't the American worker
> and the American work ethic something to believe in. Doesn't Wall
> Street, while still acknowledging that we live in a global economy,
> have an moral and ethical obligation to be responsible and patriotic
> to all American citizens regardless of their economic status? If
> we want a better America for our kids then now is the time to start
> doing the right things in energy, health care and education. That
> means for me reducing our consumption of non-renewable fuels, affordable
> health care for every American and access to a great education. If
> you are smart enough to go to college money shouldn't be a barrier.
> If we don't do these things then we will be begging for help from
> the People's Republic of China. They own 100 (maybe it's 1 or 10
> trillion, does it matter?) trillion dollars of our debt from what
> I understand. How good is that for our kid's future?

Mar 16 03:27 AM

[frosty:]

And who grades the economists? Isn't this the group who, in 2007, thought 2008 would better than ever and, in the last half of 2008, thought there was only a mild risk of a possible mild recession in 2009? Asking these guys to give a grade to someone is like asking a dropout to grade the principal.

Mar 16 09:05 AM

[Chris B:]

1)
"With all of the advice from economists, you would think we would be closer to a solution by now, but due to disagreements, that is not the case."
----------------------...
In other sciences, disagreements are resolved by doing an experiment to isolate the effect of a variable and validate a model. Economists, however, have to interpret history and develop narratives to explain how things function. Yet, history is usually a series of messy compromises, not a clean test of theory. Thus, economic arguments usually boil down to competing interpretations of which historic factors were significant.

2)
Primarily Republican business academics gave Obama a score of 59? With this demographic, I would have expected even lower.

3)
What is the purpose of giving a president a vote within the first few weeks of his term? Is anyone actually suprised and disappointed that Obama has not fixed the entire economy within 60 days? I'm all for hope, but that expectation would be ridiculous. Would they prefer a carefully thought out plan, or more of the recent patchwork panic response?

Mar 16 01:24 PM

[BARBI520:]

still no links to the name of the poll, the questions and answers in the poll, the methodology of the poll.
WSJ is owned by Murdoch which means I for one believe nothing they say especially when they refer to a poll without showing any information about the actual poll.

This is the news?? we get when right wing whackos run the news media. That's why Americans are still the dumbest electorate on the face of the earth, despit the fact, they showed some sense in voting for an intelligent honest man this time.

Mar 16 09:26 PM

[mediapro:]

Actually TCK, he could come up with a better way to frame the problem. Something like this:

The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any economic hypothesis in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation and record deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if not outright delusion.

Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course" has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted, then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth, completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something completely counter to their own self interest.


On Mar 15 07:51 PM TCK wrote:

> So far Obama's plan has been to blame Bush, blame republicans, blame
> Wall Street, blame bankers, and bame Limbaugh. Obama was attacking
> Bush and running for president for two years while in Congress.
> Seems like he could come up with smething better than, "Due to the
> mismanagement of the last eight years . . " !
>
> Also hard to always hear, "inherited crisis " regarding a job he
> volunteered for "

Mar 17 05:39 PM

[mediapro:]

Since you are casting all of us 'dummies' into your cess pool, please answer the following and tell me if you agree with these policies of the past:

1. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

2. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck. If one wants to make the small farmer argument, then set resdiency, gross receipts and size requirements on farm subsidies. This reward for planting inefficient crop supply and for NOT PLANTING crops drawfs even the oil subsidies.

3. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$100 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?



On Mar 16 03:02 AM Gob wrote:

> Just wait until all the dummies who voted for President Affirmative
> Action in hopes of a tax cut see their energy prices double due to
> cap and trade.
>
> Forget the rhetoric - everyone is getting a stealth tax increase.
> Uhhhhhbama already stuck it to the poor by whacking them with a 65
> cents a pack tax increase on cigarettes.
>
> Who mostly smokes cigarettes? Lower income folks.

Mar 17 05:44 PM

[Freedoms Truth:]

"The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any economic hypothesis in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975."

This statement is beyond idiotic. Thanks to Reaganomics, aka lower tax rate pro-business post-socialist economics, the USA and many other nations doubled their standard of living in the past generation. that policy and Friedman's pro-free-market has NOTHING to do with IMF and the World Bank which are NOT free-market institutions. So this misdescribes ideologies and mis-casts blame, when in fact credit should be given.

For example, consider Ireland or New Zealand or India, 3 countries that navigated from near-socialist in the 1970s to more free market-oriented in the 1990s and in the process became far more successful economically.

What has destroyed economies in the past was lack of property rights, socialism and corruption.

And what do we see being introduced with Obama's Co2 caps, his bank and auto and housing bailouts, welfare state expansion and trillion dollar boondoggles? Moving us into the bad-old-days of socialist corruption and destruction of capital.

The President, the Democrats, the politicians, and the DC establishment are engaged in a war on prosperity. They are attacking the wealth-creators, the engines of production and the means of job creation.
That's why the markets are down 40% since Obama's acceptance speech in August. The low rating for Obama is deserved - he is the worst President since Jimmy Carter already and is on track to become even worse.

Mar 22 11:06 PM

[19709:]

Intelligence and common sense are not necessarily the same thing.


On Mar 15 01:10 PM Paul H. M. wrote:

> It's interesting that people who use the work "pork" can't seem to
> come up with any significant examples.
>
> I agree that not everything on the bill is useful, but most of it
> is the type of stuff that will spur economic growth for many years.
>
>
> Remember all, if we never built all those roads, schools, grids in
> the New Deal, the last century of growth and prosperity would not
> have been remotely possible.
>
> So before you call something "pork", this against the long-term positive
> affect. You may be happy to realize that there was not as much "pork"
> as you assumed.
>
> And if you're bitter than the GOP guy lost, don't let that jade your
> views of the smartest man to take the White House in a very long
> time.

Mar 23 11:25 AM

[19709:]

Now now, Barbi. Calm down. Your man won and has 4 years to screw things up royally before your dubbed "right wing wackos" take control and bring sanity back.


On Mar 16 09:26 PM BARBI520 wrote:

> still no links to the name of the poll, the questions and answers
> in the poll, the methodology of the poll.
> WSJ is owned by Murdoch which means I for one believe nothing they
> say especially when they refer to a poll without showing any information
> about the actual poll.
>
> This is the news?? we get when right wing whackos run the news media.
> That's why Americans are still the dumbest electorate on the face
> of the earth, despit the fact, they showed some sense in voting for
> an intelligent honest man this time.

Mar 23 11:36 AM

[Spartacuss:]

I agree with you up to the "intellectual" part. To be intellectual after all implies knowledge first, application of same second. In the case of Obama there is little in the way of knowledge, he is in way over his head, however, the public adores his mesianic posturing and his ability to read a telepromter; just what the doctor ordered...after all the presidency is just a dog and pony show anyway.


On Mar 14 07:17 AM hillbillyharry wrote:

> Obama is in limbo-land. He has as yet,consulted his stable of 300
> advisers. The need for 300 adivors, in and of itself, reveals that
> he is incompetent, but highly intellectual.
>
> Hearing all sides of an issue leads to nothingness, and
> you produce off-setting "expert opinions", thus producing nothing.
>
>
> Now, it seems, no person of integrity desires to be nominated to
> cabinet posts, e.g. treasury, and those who desire to "serve" have
> problems with honesty.

Mar 31 01:28 PM