Opinion About Obama Coming Down to Earth?

The Economist says Obama's Presidency is coming down to Earth, and they cite Buffett:

Mr Buffett has given voice to widespread worries about the administration’s failure to prioritize. “Job one is to win the war, the economic war. Job two is to win the economic war—and job three. And you can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat.”

Buffett is wrong to criticize. Obama and his team have done everything feasible and necessary to handle the financial crisis and restart growth. People will be surprised by how quickly things will change, and there's a glimmer of hope that it is already beginning. The major threat for America now lies in the structural problems it faces. And in this, Obama is right to be strong and efficient in trying to move us forward. He is sacrificing his own interests and tranquility for the benefits of our future. For this, he should be praised.

This Economist article, however, does the opposite, and in the process displays an all-too-familiar logical problem of keeping things in perspective. His faulty qualities, according to this article, are his optimism, hard-work and ambition (really?); his mistakes include mis-chosen cabinet members and 165 million in bonuses. These are very obviously minor in scale. Do I even need to list the hundreds of real, serious, structural problems which were caused or left to us by the previous administration? And yet for some reason, the Economist was hesitant to rule Bush's presidency a disaster after 8 years, and it is already citing Obama's as potentially such.

Comments

[User 273178:]

Obama has done NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Putting us trillions of dollars in debt on social programs?
The yield curve and other measures have been forecasting an end to the recession later this year for quite a while. Let's not confuse business cycles with stimulus.

Oh I forgot, no one can criticize "The One". But it is ok for you to go after Bush.

As far as what the previous administration left us, maybe you should check out Bush's 2001 budget that called for regulating the GSE's and then in 2003 called them a systemic risk. And ask why anyone from the administration who issued dire warnings and testified at hearings in Congress were blocked by Blarney Frank and Chris Dodd. 2003, 2004, 2005 (McCain tried to address the problem). This problem was years in the making, and the previous administration was not the one pushing loans on people who couldn't afford them.

If you want to start pointing fingers, you won't like the direction they are facing.

Mar 27 06:44 AM

[I need more...:]

Obama has put forth more threats to our economy than any prez since Carter. Luckily, the stupidest of them all, cap and trade, which would affect every business, taxpayer, and consumer, was shot down in both houses of Congress.
Now all we have to worry about are all the other attacks on industry he has in his gunsights.
The government builds nothing sustainable; creates nothing but bureaucracy jobs; is incomprehensibly inefficient and wasteful; is riddled with cronyism, graft, and politicians running the show. Politicians which have never created a job, had to make a payroll, invented a product, etc.
Obama's power grab, to sieze more government control over our economy, our personal freedoms, and make more and more sheeple dependent upon the meager gov. handouts is appalling to anyone paying attention.
But, hey, don't waste a crisis.

Mar 27 08:33 AM

[fireball:]

obamamama has feet of clay. the fruits & nuts and the welfare crowd will stick with him because he promised to make the shrinking working side pay for their eco-nut theories and more welfare.
a man in his twenties who sn't a liberal has no heart.
a man in his forties who isn't conservative has no brain.
guess i never had a heart, but my conservative heartless side has always enabled me to lend a hand when friends or acquaintences needed it and deserved it. that is pyscal conservatism. i really could not care less what you do socially. drink all you want, take any drugs you wish, i don't like it but kill your inconvenient children if you must (primitive people have done it throughout history when hard conditions forced them. they just had the guts to call it what it is.), don't work. just do not force me to participate through taxation. that is my big problem with obamamama. he wants me to pay for part of his nutty promises. i do not want strangers to take my earnings by threat of force to give them to other strangers. government has no clue who should recieve charity and no constitutional authority to give it. looks like obamamama will soon crush the competition of charities soon enough. i guess free speech is the first target.
yes punish the industrious (tax). reward failure (stipend). great plan.
watch the socialist machine grind to a halt as the productive give up. who is john galt?

Mar 27 09:30 AM

[jpiretti:]

Actually it was Chuck Hagel's bill and lobbiest firm DCI(led by Doug Goodyear) payed out 2 million to Repulicans (who controlled the Senate) to get Bill Frist (majority leader) to block it for a vote. The minority can't by definition block legislation from getting to the floor, they can only filibuster once there. It would be a better idea to have the facts lead to your conclusions.


On Mar 27 06:44 AM User 273178 wrote:

> Obama has done NOTHING to stimulate the economy. Putting us trillions
> of dollars in debt on social programs?
> The yield curve and other measures have been forecasting an end to
> the recession later this year for quite a while. Let's not confuse
> business cycles with stimulus.
>
> Oh I forgot, no one can criticize "The One". But it is ok for you
> to go after Bush.
>
> As far as what the previous administration left us, maybe you should
> check out Bush's 2001 budget that called for regulating the GSE's
> and then in 2003 called them a systemic risk. And ask why anyone
> from the administration who issued dire warnings and testified at
> hearings in Congress were blocked by Blarney Frank and Chris Dodd.
> 2003, 2004, 2005 (McCain tried to address the problem). This problem
> was years in the making, and the previous administration was not
> the one pushing loans on people who couldn't afford them.
>
> If you want to start pointing fingers, you won't like the direction
> they are facing.
>

Mar 27 09:33 AM

[User 273178:]

Hagel is a RINO, but you know as well as I do that without 60 votes, it is essentially blocked. And Dodd and Frank were the ones leading the pack. So basically you are saying that everyone that the Bush Administration sent to Congress to do something never happened?

www.youtube.com/watch?...
www.youtube.com/watch?...
www.youtube.com/watch?...


There are a ton of these, I'll post 'em all day if you want.

And what would be a better idea is if you didn't get snotty because you are not right on this issue.


On Mar 27 09:33 AM jpiretti wrote:

> Actually it was Chuck Hagel's bill and lobbiest firm DCI(led by Doug
> Goodyear) payed out 2 million to Repulicans (who controlled the Senate)
> to get Bill Frist (majority leader) to block it for a vote. The minority
> can't by definition block legislation from getting to the floor,
> they can only filibuster once there. It would be a better idea to
> have the facts lead to your conclusions.

Mar 27 10:17 AM

[User 273178:]

It's amazing how Frank is given a pass for not seeing the problem in 2003, but those who did see the problem then, are the ones being criticized. Fair-minded people realize that is a case of partisan talking points, and not reality. If one wants to give some a pass in 2003, instead of criticizing those who turned out to be right, maybe some props should be given instead of blame.

Then the discussion can start on why something wasn't done, and who blocked what.

The links above are powerful. And the Repubs NEVER had the type of majority in both the house and the Senate that the Dems now enjoy, so it was gridlock. Without 60 votes, you have nothing passing.

Mar 27 10:26 AM

[jpiretti:]

Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote. The majority did not need 60 votes because it never came to the floor thanks to Frist. DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press .Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it. Why did they oppose it? Because in committee an anti-predatory lending provision was deleted from the final version....which never made it to the floor!! Thanks to Frist. It was not fillibustered!! Look it up!




On Mar 27 10:17 AM User 273178 wrote:

> Hagel is a RINO, but you know as well as I do that without 60 votes,
> it is essentially blocked. And Dodd and Frank were the ones leading
> the pack. So basically you are saying that everyone that the Bush
> Administration sent to Congress to do something never happened?<br/>
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?...
> www.youtube.com/watch?...;feature=related<br...www.youtube.com/watch?...;feature=related
>
>
>
> There are a ton of these, I'll post 'em all day if you want.
>
> And what would be a better idea is if you didn't get snotty because
> you are not right on this issue.

Mar 27 10:33 AM

[User 273178:]

Ok, so you are saying that those videos are somehow lies, and it was the Dems who wanted to fix the problem and not the Republicans on those vids. Gotcha.
And, I don't believe I ever said anything was filibustered. You know as well as everyone else that they do a vote count ahead of time, and if 60 aren't there, it usually won't go to the floor. You may be correct in a technical sense, but very wrong in a practical sense. Both parties do that.

Convenient how you won't address the youtube links though, but I understand. Those who are too firmly attached to a party often have a hard time seeing through the talking points.


On Mar 27 10:33 AM jpiretti wrote:

> Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with
> Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote. The
> majority did not need 60 votes because it never came to the floor
> thanks to Frist. DCI was undermining support for the bill in a campaign
> targeting 17 Republican senators in 13 states, according to documents
> obtained by The Associated Press .Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began
> shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee
> sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All
> GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed
> it. Why did they oppose it? Because in committee an anti-predatory
> lending provision was deleted from the final version....which never
> made it to the floor!! Thanks to Frist. It was not fillibustered!!
> Look it up!
>
>

Mar 27 10:41 AM

[jpiretti:]

I would address the youtube videos of Fox News or a speech from Obama if he was actually in the Banking committee if that trumped the Congressional record. Google "DCI Frist" and find out what power and money get you...on both sides of the aisle...nuff said.


On Mar 27 10:41 AM User 273178 wrote:

> Ok, so you are saying that those videos are somehow lies, and it
> was the Dems who wanted to fix the problem and not the Republicans
> on those vids. Gotcha.
> And, I don't believe I ever said anything was filibustered. You know
> as well as everyone else that they do a vote count ahead of time,
> and if 60 aren't there, it usually won't go to the floor. You may
> be correct in a technical sense, but very wrong in a practical sense.
> Both parties do that.
>
> Convenient how you won't address the youtube links though, but I
> understand. Those who are too firmly attached to a party often have
> a hard time seeing through the talking points.

Mar 27 10:56 AM

[brokerinbir...:]

What a useless article! Not only useless, it's baseless.
In what way has Obama done everything to stimulate the economy?
Are you talking about that load of horse _____ he called a stimulus? Are you talking about how he and his administration constantly give America the overt message they are actually planning to spread the wealth? Are you talking about the plan to make those who work hard and pay their bills pay more in taxes so that the non-workers can have more perks? Or are you talking about how Obama et al wants us to have a state-run health care system so we can have the same famously successful system like they do in Europe and Canada where you may well die while waiting for a decison if you're life is worth saving -a government beureaucrat gets to make that decision of course? What plan exactly are you talking about that gives anyone but rapscallion carpetbagger liberal types hope that O knows how an economy actually works?

Mar 27 11:22 AM

[brokerinbir...:]

P.S. - we need a president who can take criticism from anyone and not act like a churlish adolescent. I mean, to use his own words, "I won in November so I trump you." Fine. Act like a man then and not like a mamma's sissy boy and go off crying because Rush/Hannity/Fox get on your bad side. If you want to dish it out on Bush, be ready to take it yourself, Mr. Emperor Obama.

Mar 27 11:27 AM

[Carlos Lam:]

Nick, this submission is a pathetic political screed disguised as a financial article.

1. You fail to point out that Pres. Obama has "done everything feasible and necessary to handle the financial crisis and restart growth" from a Keyensian perspective. You make the assumption that (a) all readers agree with your Keyensian perspective and (b) Keyensian policies will work (despite the fact that they didn't work in 1930s America or 1990s Japan). SA is a website with many readers who do not subscribe to your Keyensian perspective.

2. You argue that Pres. Obama "is sacrificing his own interests and tranquility for the benefits of our future." What interests, precisely, is he sacrificing? His budget rewards his political constituencies. Education funding is increased under Pres. Obama's proposed budget, pleasing the teachers' unions. Pres. Obama wants more money to be used for healthcare, thereby pleasing advocates who wish for more governmental intervention in the healthcare system. Pres. Obama got the Stimulus Package passed by a lapdog Congress, a package that showers money on local government officials. Indeed, I cannot name a single "sacrifice" that Pres. Obama has had to make, except for maybe his casual discarding of promises of sane fiscal stewardship.

3. If you are going to criticize Pres. Bush, why not spell out exactly which "real, serious, structural problems " you believe he caused? Whenever I attack the Bush Presidency, I always mention his expansion of federal power (i.e. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D) and his willingness to bailout those who made incorrect investment and production choices (i.e. the TARP, GM).

Mar 27 12:00 PM

[User 273178:]

Very well said, right on down to my criticisms of President Bush.


On Mar 27 12:00 PM clam75 wrote:

> Nick, this submission is a pathetic political screed disguised as
> a financial article.
>
> 1. You fail to point out that Pres. Obama has "done everything feasible
> and necessary to handle the financial crisis and restart growth"
> from a Keyensian perspective. You make the assumption that (a) all
> readers agree with your Keyensian perspective and (b) Keyensian policies
> will work (despite the fact that they didn't work in 1930s America
> or 1990s Japan). SA is a website with many readers who do not subscribe
> to your Keyensian perspective.
>
> 2. You argue that Pres. Obama "is sacrificing his own interests
> and tranquility for the benefits of our future." What interests,
> precisely, is he sacrificing? His budget rewards his political constituencies.
> Education funding is increased under Pres. Obama's proposed budget,
> pleasing the teachers' unions. Pres. Obama wants more money to be
> used for healthcare, thereby pleasing advocates who wish for more
> governmental intervention in the healthcare system. Pres. Obama
> got the Stimulus Package passed by a lapdog Congress, a package that
> showers money on local government officials. Indeed, I cannot name
> a single "sacrifice" that Pres. Obama has had to make, except for
> maybe his casual discarding of promises of sane fiscal stewardship.
>
>
> 3. If you are going to criticize Pres. Bush, why not spell out exactly
> which "real, serious, structural problems " you believe he caused?
> Whenever I attack the Bush Presidency, I always mention his expansion
> of federal power (i.e. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D) and
> his willingness to bailout those who made incorrect investment and
> production choices (i.e. the TARP, GM).

Mar 27 01:04 PM

[Chancer:]

Let's not forget that Obummer:

Defined the illegal immigration issue as: "It is about they cannot join unions and complain about minimum wage."

Defined cause of deficit as: "The biggest driver of long-term deficits are the huge health care costs..."

When you analyze what he says, the smartest guy in the room seems to have mush for brains.

Obummer appears to have created a trick/gimmick to convince the unthinking masses how smart he is. He just says things from a really weird perspective that no one else could come up with. Because it is different (and may be really stupid) many people mistakenly see him as smarter.

When enough people begin to figure out that this guy is just a "silver tongue" trickster, they will begin to turn on him.

Mar 27 07:08 PM

[Tony Petroski:]

The author has the style of a Maoist praising the Great Leap Forward and the Great Helmsman.

Mar 27 08:56 PM