home

Obama: Key To Economic Growth Is Deficit Reduction

We are so screwed:

This recession has taught us that we can’t return to a situation where America’s economic growth is fueled by consumers who take on more and more debt. In order to keep growing, we need to spend less, save more, and get our federal deficit under control. We also need to place a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell to other nations – exports that can help create new jobs at home and raise living standards throughout the world.

This is insane. Either Obama is a fool or he is listening to fools. If he really believes this and acts in consistent fashion, the country will soon see 13% unemployment, the Democratic Party will be doomed to defeat and Obama could well be a one term President. My gawd, Hoover could not have said it better.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Senate Health Care Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Black Friday now is unpatriotic? (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    Darn, the daughters and nieces and moms and aunts were planning a fun day to introduce our newcomer to the family to not only her first Thanksgiving but also her first experience with utter mall madness, and especially since she soon will be introduced to our winters and will need warm clothes, especially footwear for what is ahead.  

    But I guess we'll just go home and darn socks to make them last longer for the good of the country, and we'll have her put newspaper in her shoes, Depression-style, to slog through the snow.

    We're going to create those jobs... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    ...without spending? If he had said we are going to invest public dollars heavily in job creation and new technology, with the same intensity, say, that we went to the moon, then I could think he had a brain cell. But this sounds like a man both defeated and utterly bereft of imagination. We are screwed is right.

    Lot of stimulus money (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    is being spent in developing hi tech. Science and engineering labs in the nation's universities and national labs never had it so good since the 1960s. Unfortunately, these labs only employ hundreds of researchers while thousands of people with less specialized skills are getting laid off every day.

    The Obama administration has to do more to increase spending to develop our infrastructure to decrease unemployment in our country. However, it is not wrong for Obama to say that we should work towards increasing our savings and increasing our proportion of exports to imports.

    Parent

    Rather difficult for people to increase (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    their savings when they are unemployed.

    Parent
    Or, their adult off spring are unemployed, (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:29:48 PM EST
    right Cream City?

    Parent
    Yep. But be still my heart . . . (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:43:36 PM EST
    as one just got a third interview and may, just may, get a job offer in two weeks or so.  But then, we've been through that before and before and before.  And we're still waiting to see just what the benefits look like, as helping this one -- and the other who also does not qualify for COBRA -- buy health insurance is just slaughtering our budget.

    At least that one does not have pre-existing health conditions.  Three of them do -- young people, too, all on COBRA now, and all desperately needing to see Congress continue the subsidy to help the laid-off get that health insurance.  The subsidy runs out soon, and it could mean one would lose his house to be able to stay in school (voc school for a health care job).  Another would lose her car, and I don't know how she also could keep getting to college (to train for K-6 teaching).  Etc.  

    So instead of addressing the need to continue the COBRA subsidy and other help for the unemployed, we're getting kabuki on alleged health care reform that may not help any of these offspring -- and may make it worse for some of them.

    Parent

    Wish we had COBRA available here. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    Out of pocket.  

    I went to alternative high school R.O.P. culinary program fundraiser Thurs.  On of the seniors in the program spoke.  He has really turned around his grades, has ambition to go to college, and has a three-week old son.  Gawd.

    Parent

    To say it now? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:37:25 AM EST
    When we need increased government spending targetted at job creation?

    that's not wrong? You must be joking.

    Parent

    I think he's talking about (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by robotalk on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    personal debt, not national debt.  See below.

    Parent
    Americans are already learning their (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:20:44 AM EST
    lessons there.  People who overextended are in the streets right now and many more will follow.  He's preaching to the suffering? Plenty of people know how they helped get themselves there.  It is possible to fix the economy and with the other half of the equation that is still getting a bonus and brought this on while people learn the lesson at the same time.

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:22:29 AM EST
    meant to type "deal with the other half of the equation that is still getting a bonus and brought this on".

    Parent
    Obama threw his lot in with the Villagers.... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by trillian on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    ....the moment he got to Washington as a Senator.  They are, and always have been, the only people he listens to.

    Obama, fool or corporatist? (none / 0) (#134)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:17:17 PM EST
    BTD lets Obama off easy:
    Obama is a fool or he is listening to fools.

    Perhaps Obama plays the fool to obfuscate the more fitting conclusion that he is a mendacious corporatist who listens to mendacious corporatists.

    Parent

    Is this the Univ. of Chicago economists (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:39:23 AM EST
    theory?

    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:05:21 PM EST
    Pure supply side trickle down gobbledegook.

    Parent
    Is this question too difficult? Too trivial? (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:55:08 PM EST
    The University of Chicago has always (none / 0) (#149)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    leaned much more in favor of believing that the free market could correct itself.  They like to focus on a convergence of meandering theories in my opinion.

    Parent
    This Krugman article (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:38:59 AM EST
    may be helpful.  Follow through on the Saltwater Economics link in it.

    Parent
    As I said the other day ... (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    it's the Hoover comparisons that Obama needs to really worry about.

    And now here he is, only few days later, walking right into such a comparison.

    Though I think his blame the victim logic (i.e. consumers are the real problem) might even have made Hoover shudder.

    Oh, Hoover blamed the victims (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    -- the veterans, the Bonus Army.  And Hoover sent MacArthur and Patton and the nation's army to kill them in the nation's capital.  

    By contrast, FDR offered the survivors work to build highways.

    Which way would be the best way for Obama to go?

    Parent

    Or perhaps what's called for ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:53:20 AM EST
    here is a rewrite of Marc Antony's funeral oration:

    Friends, Romans, consumers ...

    ;)

    Parent

    Or would that be . . . (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:35:03 PM EST
    Friends, Roman Catholic bishops, consumers. . . ?

    Parent
    Lend me your money (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:52:27 PM EST
    I'll be a little more concerned (none / 0) (#22)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    about the Hoover comparisons when Obama starts talking about how the gubmt can't be the answer to all our problems, and that the private sector needs to step in to be good neighbors to those in need, etc.

    Right now I'll stand with my Obama=FDR '37, until someone talks me out of it.

    Parent

    Private Sector (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    Every time Obama talks about job creation he states 'private sector'  The tax cuts and tax credits are on their way!

    Parent
    What the hell does he mean, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Radix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    "turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater"?

    it's called finger pointing (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    he's pointing it at everyone else, not himself, and not those he lavishes billions on. it's pointed squarely at all us useless non-rich folks.

    Parent
    Carter is Pres. '77-'81. My daughter, (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    who was born in '68, supported W in 2000 and '04 and Obama in '08, says Obama = Carter. I am hoping Obama will change.  

    Parent
    Why insult Carter that way? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:12:19 PM EST
     Carter, after all, was clearly Democratic. Obama? More and more he acts, and sounds like a run o' the mill big business republican. Mitt Romney may be a better comparison. Or a little GW. . .

    Parent
    Don't you know (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    that the Clintonbots learnt from the Republicans that Carter was a "bad President" and a "loser"?

    Parent
    I leanred that all on my own (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    But if the Clintonbots think it, they are right on one thing at least.

    Carter was a lousy President.

    Parent

    losing = bad (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    that's just the way it is for most people.

    Parent
    I dunno, hook. (none / 0) (#56)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    Carter put that center-right wackjob Chris Matthews on the map.  He went to D.C. and proceeded to diss, again and again, Messrs Ted and Tip.

    Then there was that first acceptance speech at the Demo Confab in '76, the one where he opened by saying how it was a "pleasure to be here with all you Democrats" ...

    Parent

    You misunderstand (none / 0) (#64)
    by hookfan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:39:32 PM EST
    The insult is to suggest that Obama is even just as bad as Carter. In his short time, Obama is wracking up quite a negative score that may already outweigh Carter. . .

    Parent
    Key to losing majorities in both houses (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:43:11 PM EST
    of Congress and the WH, are continual increases in unemployment.

    Angry voters tend to vote out incumbents. Can't think of anything that upsets voters more than losing their jobs or fear that they will be next.

    Of course, main street will get screwed either way. Democrats pursuing Republican economic policies or Republicans pursuing Republican economic policies, the results are the same.

    Possible 53 billion $$ down the drain: (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    Same thing (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by pluege on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    Either Obama is a fool or he is listening to fools.

    it takes a fool to listen to fools.

    No ifs, ands, or buts, obama is a fool and we are screwed.

    It would be useful to see (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    how much of that debt held by Americans is medical bills.  I know several people, laid off now, whose debt is almost entirely due to medical bills. . . .

    It seems simplistic for the president... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by EL seattle on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:36:38 PM EST
    ... to say "This recession has taught us that we can't return to a situation where America's economic growth is fueled by consumers who take on more and more debt."

    I wonder what percentage of the "consumers debt" is directly tied to house-related debt?

    What about education-related debt?

    Or health-related debt?

    And auto-related debt?

    Sometimes when the president and others talk about consumer debt, there seems to be a subtle suggestion that the problem is due to Americans racking up credit card bills on infommercial impulse purchases.  I'd love to know just how much of the average consumer's overall debt is related to the significant big-ticket expenses in their lives.

    And that medical-bills debt (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:09:10 PM EST
    as I noted in a comment elsewhere, is the majority of debt of many people I know who are struggling now, especially those laid off.  Darn them for not just dying?

    Harkin cited a figure yesterday that I've seen elsewhere as well:  70 percent of personal bankruptcies are owing to medical-bills debt.

    And scarier is that 80 percent of those people had health insurance.  But many hit their caps within weeks, even days, owing to medical crises.

    Parent

    Sounds like he had a chat with our creditors (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    He was in Asia last week, was he not?  This is exactly what they were talking about.  Of course they also talked about the other side of this coin - China must export less, spend more, and stop pegging the Yuan at something like six cents (I know that's not literally where the Yuan is pegged, so lay off already).  Everyone knows it is true.  The days of the American consumer supporting China's expansion via debt (and vice versa) are over - it simply cannot be done any more.  NOT easily fixed, though, and therefore a real problem ...

    See? I'm listening (none / 0) (#119)
    by kidneystones on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    FreakyBeaky has the basic point right. The Asia trip likely won conditional support for another Friedman Unit of credit. The fact is that no matter how of the deficit/unemployment challenge Dems inherited, Dems all ran on a platform of correcting errors. Instead, there's now a mass of evidence suggesting Dems have compounded the problems by essentially continuing many of the same policies that got us into this mess.

    There is, however, grounds for cautious optimism. I agree wholeheartedly with the general tenor of the 'he's only interested in his own political future' strain of the thread. Ford refused the bail-out money and is producing quality products. There are sectors of the economy that are doing an excellent job of withstanding what is essentially a four-year economic hurricane. Hint: we're only in year-two.

    Were Republicans offering attractive candidates and policies, its safe to say a 2010 wipe-out would be pretty much guaranteed. There's time to create some modest progress on health care reform, some sort of half-ass policy on Afghanistan, and some form of job-creation program. That should cut some of the losses.

    I don't frankly think Americans expect the administration to pull the jobs out of thin-air and support for Dems remains remarkably strong considering their overall disastrous performance.

    I expect the administration to sign-off on something like 40,000 troops for Afghanistan, take absolutely any half-ass HRC bill as a win, and fire a bunch of people in Washington in the new year to signal a new approach to job creation. Irony intentional.

    Its unfortunately about the optics in the short-term. I'm un-convinced there is a long-term plan, but I think there's still ample time for Dems to turn things around. Un-employment is already above 15% in Michigan and once 'unacceptable' numbers have become a fact of life for too many. The shock effect of 13% unemployment is thereby reduced.

    See? Its all good.

    Parent

    He's not even a one term president. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    Effectively Geithner, Summers and Bernanke are president. And Blankfein. And Gates.

    Obama has spoken the truth (2.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    I would rather see him lose the elections than not have him speak the plain unvarnished truth, unpopular as it maybe to the base of his party.
    For America's economic survival we have to go back to the basics, i.e. bring the federal deficit under control, create manufacturing and engineering jobs in the country, decrease the stranglehold of the financial sector on the government, build up an export oriented economy, focus on science and technology education and lead the world through technological innovation.
    Many TL'ers pine for the days of FDR and LBJ. They conveniently forget that during FDR and LBJ's time, the US led the world in technology and China did not hold such a huge volume of US debt. The rest of the world outside America was not so economically competitive in the golden "liberal" decades. Europe was still coming out from the ravages of WWII and Asian economic powers did not exist. The US now has to compete not only with Germany, France, England, Japan and China but also S.Korea, Taiwan, India, Brazil, Russia, Australia and numerous European and Asian countries to sell its products.
    I wish the Obama administration did more to rein in the influence of the financial sector; having said that I will applaud the President for having the courage to speak the truth. I will applaud more heartily if Obama tells school teachers that they have to do better in improving the level of grade school science education in our country so that it is at par with that in the rest of the industrial world.


    Thank you Herbert Hoover (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    Over the long term, it's truth (none / 0) (#88)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    Over the short term, it's stupid.  Short term - maybe even medium term - we need stimulus.  We have got to emphasize jobs, not emphasize deficits and hope jobs follow.  It ain't 1994 anymore.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    just another example of having someone so inexperienced as Obama at the helm.

    Where does the point come when the party starts asking him to step down? I mean if he doesn't have the judgement nor abilty to lead us out of this mess then maybe Biden should take the helm.


    Do you think it's the inexperience, or (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    the absolute lack of interest? He just cannot get himself into the shoes of the people in this country. Few are taken by the hand and just led into position after position....none of which ever could have been classified as a "job". He doesn't understand, and does not care to learn.

    There's no life history. He wasn't a "bad boy" getting drunk, high, and bailed out. He wasn't a self-made politician who became the youngest governor, lost a re-election campaign, learned from it and went back to win the seat again. He has no family traditions like sailing, touch football, or parents who mentored him into wanting to serve. Who is he? His memoirs didn't tell us. He doesn't seem to have friends or relatives...those we thought he had he claims not. Was he in a fraternity? I don't know how anyone can be surprised by the things that come out of him.

    Perhaps the Chinese told him these things. They sounded logical, so he morphed his thinking. Give it a few hours, it'll change.


    Parent

    I certainly (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:28:05 PM EST
    wouldn't rule out lack of interest. Or total self aborption. He only cares about an issue to the extent that it affect him but he's even moving away from that right now since I don't think that he realizes the current healtcare bill may cost him reelection.

    Parent
    I agree; (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:53:51 PM EST
    and the tragedy is that he displays a total lack of empathy for the poor, and/or middle class/working people. I get a sense he somehow feels disdain towards them (us.)

    I noticed, and pointed out, that during the primaries, and the general, his advertisements never showed, as do most politicians, testimonials from people in his constituency that he has helped somehow. Wasn't that strange? You would have thought that a "community organizer" who forfeited the "high paying" Wall Street jobs in order to help the downtrodden in Chicago would have been replete with examples of people whose lives were improved by Obama's action.

    The only example I remember seeing was from the Boston Globe expose recounting how he obtained several hundred million dollars in federal aid purportedly to build low income/affordable housing in Chicago`s slums. He turned the money over to a bunch of dirt-bag, sleazy developers (including Tony Rezko) who just happened to be major campaign contributors of his. Exercising no supervision, or oversight, as to how the money was spent, those bums razed entire communities and threw up sub-standard, defective buildings, which several years later had to be bulldozed into the ground after having been declared uninhabitable.

    That, to my recollection, was the only "accomplishment" he ever produced. One of the tenants interviewed stated, "when it was a slum at least I had a home; now I live in the city shelter. Thanks Obama."


    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:09:21 PM EST
    he really meant what he said when he was talking about the bitter clingy people. He really doesnt care much for the middle class. So when these said voters boot him in 2012 he can continue to blame them for his problems.

    Parent
    If Obama loses in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    it is more likely that he will take it in his stride gracefully and pursue a cause important to him (like Carter and Gore).
    Ga6thDem, You are really cracking me up. During the primaries, you said that Obama's background was too "exotic" for him to get elected President, during the GE campaign, you were convinced that Obama was doing everything wrong and was going to get hammered by McCain. Then after Obama won, you started pretending that any dummy could have beaten McCain in 2008, now you are convinced that Obama will get beaten in 2012 and some people will be blamed by him.
    I will say that you will wrong again in 2012, just as you have been all along.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:31:12 PM EST
    I said that his "exotic" background was going to be a problem and it has been. He is completely unable to relate to voters.

    Look, Obama won by default. He didnt campaign to get a mandate on issues so he doesnt have one hence the complete mess we have now. The continual apologies and excuses are hysterical. It's like he's some incompetent baby who must be protected from the "mean people".

    How do you think that he's going to get reelected with double digit unemployment and this disaster of a health care bill? And obviously you weren't paying much attention last year because Obama did make some pretty sloppy mistakes in his camapaign. Did they cost him? No, they didnt in the end but he can't continue with the sloppiness. Look the country needs leadership now not some organizer who constantly compromises. Obama is screwing us economically and the party and if you don't care then that's certainly your right. You can make apology after apology for him.

    Parent

    He is able to relate to the majority of voters (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    alright, that is why he won the election. The people that you are most comfortable with may never relate to him, but what President relates to every kind of people? I also have friends (Democrats and Republicans) who are more comfortable relating to Eisenhower, Carter and Obama at a personal level but do not relate too well to the Clintons or the Kennedys or the Bushes (irrespective of whatever policies of the last 3 mentioned names they agree with).  

    Parent
    He didnt (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 09:03:42 PM EST
    win because of his ability to relate to voters. he won becuase of the economic collapse.

    Parent
    It will be very tough for you for some years (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    You hoped that Obama would lose, you expected him to lose and are disconsolate now that he won. You are now trying to remove the egg from your face by coming up with more trash.
    That is the only thing that I see from your post.
    I see a bold President who is not afraid to speak the truth to his base about broader economic policy, who is courageous enough to make the Generals wait till he understands the situation on the ground fully in Afghanistan. I see a President who is ready to bring health care insurance to many millions of people who do not have one today; it is too bad that you do not see that!
    I would prefer that Obama continue to take decisions based on his convictions; if he does not win re-election so be it!

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 10:24:56 PM EST
    Are you really serious? I'm sorry but your posts are really bordering on the hysterical now.

    The ones who need to remove the egg off their face are all the ones who bought into the whole Obama change thing. He's just bascially said that everything Bush did was right from the WOT to the economic bailouts. He has backflipped and caved so many times it's downright funny. Those are actual events and not something that you are apparently creating in your fevered imagination. Declaring that you can read my mind is just nuts! You guys really do create your own kool aid induced reality dont you?

    Parent

    He didn't forfeit anything (none / 0) (#121)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    That's as big a load as "raised by a single mother on food stamps." He knew exactly what he was doing and who he was doing it for....you named them when you said who he gave the money to under the pretense of helping the poor community.

    Parent
    thanks, (none / 0) (#130)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:28:27 PM EST
    I should have use "_"s around "forfeited."

    Parent
    Any time :) (none / 0) (#139)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:11:25 PM EST
    You did a great summary...just thought you missed an opportunity on that story they told about his selfless soul giving up Wall Street bucks.

    Where was he working when he got that little mansion in his well-connected corner of town?

    Parent

    Where was he working? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 02:29:09 AM EST
    The same place he's been working from....since "Kindergarten;"   writing his January 20, 2009 acceptance speech.

    lol


    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    George W. Bush:  was "bad boy" getting drunk, high, and bailed out, has family traditions like sailing, touch football, or parents who mentored him into wanting to serve, belonged to a fraternity

    Bobby Jindal: Self-made politician who became the youngest governor, lost an election campaign, learned from it and went back to win the seat again. Also a Rhodes scholar who became the President of the university system in his state at the age of 28.

    The "life history" that Inspector Gadget thinks make our politicians "get themselves into the shoes of people in this country" is a big part of the autobiography of GWB and Bobby Jindal.

    Fascination for such "life history" may explain the irrational hostility of people like Inspector Gadget (and the people who gave her "5" for her comments) towards people with "no life history". Fortunately for the rest of us, the majority of Americans prefer people with "no life history".


    Parent

    You shouldn't attempt to interpret anyone's (none / 0) (#153)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    comments. You are lousy at it.

    The point being made is nothing more than the volume of history we know about past presidents, and knew before they won their first elections v. how we know nothing about this potus other than the very high level brief job titles.

    Parent

    I bet (none / 0) (#46)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:54:49 PM EST
    it is more a case of seeing these things in China and witnessing first hand how the economic balance of power is shifting away from the United States than a case of "perhaps the Chinese told him these things". However, Obama said each of these things during the primaries and also during the GE campaign, so I think he has conviction in this regard. I applaud his courage for speaking unpopular truths to the base of his party.


    Parent
    Truths? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:56:55 PM EST
    Pshaw. Hooverisms.

    Parent
    Um, never. (none / 0) (#86)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    Seriously?  When was the last time ... hell, when was the first time in American history that happened?  And don't say Nixon, he was forced out.  Obama isn't stepping aside, and his party will not ask him too.  GWB wasn't asked to leave.  It is never going to happen.  

    Parent
    LBJ (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    LBJ took himself out -- (none / 0) (#100)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    and that was for re-election.  Only then and thereafter did the party, in effect, tell him that they wouldn't allow him to undo his 3.31.68 announcement of not running again.

    Nixon was forced out, the only prior precedent I can think of.

    Parent

    Of course LBJ took himself out. (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:55:37 PM EST
    He took himself out when (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    his early re-elect numbers looked unpromising -- Lyndon didn't want to risk the embarrassment of a series of primary season defeats -- then later closer to the convention hoped the Party would ask him to run again.  He wanted to be asked, but was told no.  (Curious fellow, Lyndon ...)

    Of course, he never stepped down early from his presidency, as the above poster hopes will happen to Obama.  He merely finished out his term (and handed the reins over to another crook ...)

    Parent

    I am not interested in Joe Biden being (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    President.

    Parent
    Oy. Your mouth (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    to God's ears (shudder).

    Parent
    LBJ (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    was never popular.  He didn't even really win election on his own to begin with.  We were scared to death after JFK was killed, and wanted some kind of continuity, not yet another president, which would have been the third in two years.  Nuh-uh.  So LBJ's situation is in no way comparable to Obama's.

    Parent
    Oh, I hope that you're not predicting (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    that disaster for the Dems again.  True, LBJ did not step aside early.  He stepped aside too late,  and thus unfolded the free-for-all -- already a mess before the assassinations -- that handed the White House to the GOP, and far worse.

    The Dems have been handed what ought to be a shoo-in incumbency, and we can only hope that it doesn't devolve into all that insanity again.  

    Parent

    I thought the comment (none / 0) (#98)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    you were replying to did suggest the way to go for Obama might be to have the party force him out -- i.e., a delegation of party elders scenario which goes to the WH to basically tell O that he's lost his support in Congress and can no longer go on governing, that he should step down and turn over the reins to the VP.

    Iow, exactly what happened to Nixon.

    Parent

    Worked re Paterson? Didn't it? (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:27:28 PM EST
    did I say they WOULD do it? No, I'm mostly wondering IF but Obama is apparently determined to drag the party down in flames with him much like Carter did and whether they can or will learn anything from the last lesson?

    Parent
    It is not Carter's fault (none / 0) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    that Mondale and Dukakis and liberal purity trolls could not convince the nation that their policies were better!

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    Carter, at best.

    BTW, my hope is that he's just lying (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    That is not very nuanced! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    I will try to nuance it: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:00:38 PM EST
    It sounds like the usual modus operandi to cool hot potatoes with  winds buffeting his finger held in the air---governance by fine speech, with no intention of doing any of it.

    Parent
    I was actually referring to andgarden's (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    comment.

    Parent
    Oh, sorry, so was I. (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    Eleven-Dimensional Lying? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    Throughout the '08 campaign, there was a prevailing assumption that Obama was "campaigning to the center with the intention of governing to the left". In other words, a lot of the OFB hoped/assumed Obama was "lying" about being a "centrist".

    After nearly a year of Obama governance, we now see that Obama was indeed dissembling - but not in the way many assumed. Turns out, he campaigned to the center with the evident intention of governing, not to the left, but to the right.  

    Parent

    Well, maybe Obama=FDR 1937, (none / 0) (#19)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    the not callous but prematurely overconfident president who misread the economic situation and reverted to Republican principles of managing the economy.  

    Of course, by then FDR had proved himself by introducing some bold ND proposals of 1933 then an even stronger set of policies in 1935, and had one re-election behind him and the tremendous confidence of the people over a fair period of time.  Obama, after 10 mos, hasn't failed yet with the people, but he also has yet to fully prove himself competent in dealing with the overall crisis.

    I also don't get a sense from him that Obama's been boning up big time on the particulars of managing economic growth, sufficient, say, to give his several Goldman Sachs advisers a skeptical grilling about their Wall Street-oriented proposals.  JFK learned quickly in this subject area, almost at a PhD level according to one Yale economist adviser.  And that was in a period with only a mild downturn facing him.

    Dunno if Obama is quite up to Kennedy's ability though.  But he could compensate by bringing in one or two new people to advise him from a more Main Street friendly perspective.  

    Obama doesn't seem to me to be dithering on the question of the next step in Afghanistan, but he does seem to be taking his sweet time with dealing directly and boldly with the huge lingering issue of job growth.

    Parent

    And FDR already had experience (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    in trying out these programs and others as governor of New York.  That was what he campaigned on.

    But today's electorate decided that experience doesn't matter.  There 'tis.

    Parent

    Actually, from what I've seen over (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:17:27 PM EST
    this past year or so, I don't think experience matters, either. I honestly think that 75% of the commenters here could be better at the job than he is.


    Parent
    Challenged by a knowledge of history (none / 0) (#40)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:36:32 PM EST
    Experience never mattered, it did not in 1960 (Kennedy Vs Nixon) and not in 1992 (Clinton Vs Bush). Blaming "today's electorate" indicates a surprising lack of depth in knowledge of history.
    Some of the TLs who never tire of complaining about how shallow today's electorate is would do well to remember that Camelot and saxophones and boxers and briefs and media driven puffs like "soccer moms" and "security moms" have been a feature of every election cycle.


    Parent
    Experience isn't the only (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:41:52 PM EST
    thing, but it's still an important threshold consideration, so it's probably not accurate to say that it "never matters".  As I believe half-termer Sarah Palin will find out if she decides to run in 2012.

    Btw, Kennedy didn't run on a shallow "Camelot" platform in 1960, but did have 4 debates with the supposed superior debater, Tricky Dick, and was easily his match, and more, on the substantive issues.

    Clinton was brilliant in dragging out his sax on Arsenio to bring back media attention that had been going exclusively to Péreau and Poppy.  I'd like to think that all the experience he'd gained in many previous campaigns gave him the confidence to pull that sorta bold stroke, which could easily have backfired and made him look silly.

    Re Obama vs Hillary, I'd like to think a tougher, less patient type like Hillary, having heard or been involved in some of the arguments in the WH from 1993, would have been closely questioning both Geithner and Summers much earlier in the presidency about how long a trickle-down approach for Wall Street would take to finally get to Main St.  Obama, it would appear, has just been far too kind and patient with these two.

    Parent

    I have always maintained (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    that Americans always elect someone with the right combination of substance and charisma. This is exactly the reason why Kennedy, Clinton and Obama got elected. Unfortuntalely Clinton supporters in TL have been brainwashed to think that Obama does not have any substance and was a media driven conspiracy against them. You have brought up Presidential debates, let me take the opportunity to remind you that Obama did very well against McCain in all 3 of them.
    Look, HRC promised the moon to people in Upstate New York in terms of reducing unemployment there. She did not succeed. A lot of people were also very concerned about how she ran her primary campaign. I have heard numerous people say that if she could not prevent her primary campaign from running into the red, how could she be trusted on the economy. I have my reservations about Geithner and Summers but let us not pretend that all the people HRC surrounded herself with were any more reassuring. Geithner, Summers, Rubin would have been there, we would also be lectured to everyday by the McAuliffs, Lanny Davises, Mark Penns and Howard Wolfsons.


    Parent
    Americans ALWAYS elect someone (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:48:04 PM EST
    with the right combination of substance and charisma?

    Your list leaves out quite a few people that might well make your claim less than valid. We could start with George W. Bush to name just one. The right combination of substance and charisma?

    Parent

    Caveat (none / 0) (#89)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    In the post WWII world, this statement applies only to Democratic Presidents :-). Republican Presidents like Bush and Nixon win by "strategery".

    Parent
    Ah, GeeDub. (none / 0) (#103)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:57:28 PM EST
    The perfect example -- fairly rare at the P level -- of the utter lack of both substance and charisma.

    Otherwise, with some recent Ps we've seen serious imbalances in that substance-charisma combination:

    Substance but No Charisma:  LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Poppy.

    Charisma but No Substance:  Raygun

    Parent

    If you haven't noticed, this (none / 0) (#80)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    Hillary 08 backer, quite aware of her campaign's serious flaws and the Penn disaster, is a little bit less cynical about Obama's performance so far than many here.  Disappointed and a bit concerned, yes, but not quite ready yet to look for a primary opponent or for that always available principled purist Ralf Nadir to start up his 4th (or 5th) run.

    As for Obama's substance or ability, I haven't really seriously discounted him there either, and I agree he was a solid debater, though I don't think he's in Kennedy's class intellectually, nor as instinctive and nimble with the combination of politics and substance as the usually sharp (except for 1937) FDR.

    Re a Pres Hillary, I doubt very much she would seek just to repeat her husband's presidency by putting the same people in charge in order to make it just Bill Clinton's 3d and 4th terms.  But my point on her dealing with the economy had more to do with experience plus personality, and how I suspect she would have been quicker to act, or at least to have the confidence to ask the tough questions of the experts.  And her negative experience from the campaign, had she survived to learn from it in the WH, would have been a primary factor in her not letting troublesome economic matters go unattended for long ...

    Parent

    Yep, it was the economy and health care (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    that were most significant for me, as I said throughout.  And especially after some research I did 'way back on the U of Chicago economists. . . .

    I guess I didn't like their economic "personalities."

    Parent

    Brodie (none / 0) (#108)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    Much as I like HRC and appreciate the fact that you have been reasonable in your criticisms of Obama, I feel that you are indulging in some wishful thinking regarding what may have been were HRC the President. Two of the most signature promises that HRC made were promises on health care reform that she made to all Americans in the early 1990s and the promise that she made to people in Upstate New York (that she would create 200000 jobs) during her Senate campaign. She failed in both endeavours. I am not convinced that she would ask Geithner and Summers harder questions than Obama is asking; it is more likely that she would rely on the wisdom of the Geithners and Summers to bring the economy just on track in the same way she listened to the advice of Penn and others who convinced her that she had won the primaries even before they had commenced.
    HRC has never been a good strategist; her ardent supporters believe that she is a great "fighter". I really wish that she did a little less "fighting" and a little more "strategizing".
    How do we know that HRC would not get spooked if Republicans shouted slogans that she was a Marxist or a socialist. We saw how spooked she was about Republican criticism when she voted for the war in Iraq, I also began to wonder whether she really had any deep convictions about anything when she attempted to tie Farakkan and Ayers around Obama's neck before the primaries in Pennsylvania (never mind the fact that the Clintons and Rendells had always sought electoral help from the Farakkans and the Jeremiah Wrights in their earlier life). I am also quite certain that HRC would try to prove that she was tougher than McCain and other Republicans when it came to issues like introducing sanctions and bombing against other countries, dealing with GITMO detainees and on immigration issues. On health care reform, all HRC promised was "Universal health care", no promise was ever made about how much that health care would cost.
    Most of the wishful thinking that the majority of people indulge in regarding HRC's candidacy is driven by personality based politics and not on reality.


    Parent
    Well, in my defense in the (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:32:49 PM EST
    I did try to qualify it with a handy "I'd like to think" -- hardly the unqualified view of a true believing Hillarybot.

    As for her personality, which is always a relevant factor in governing successfully as opposed to a shallow purely personality-driven campaign appeal as with Palin, I do perceive it as stronger, more forceful and in most instances more confrontational (despite a few nicey-nice yrs in the senate, as she waited to make her big run) than the more olive-branch extending, kumbaya approach of Obama, who has spent far too much time in this HCR process trying to woo one or two unmovable Republicans.  Confrontational he is not -- something an effective president (most of them anyway) needs to be at key times.

    Further, I do believe that in comparison with Obama, she would have needed much less of a learning period starting out in the WH.  Been there, done that, to a great extent as Asst Pres to Bill.  I think we've lost months with Obama learning in the health care process.  Hillary -- I'd prefer to think but I'll never know -- would have had this whole thing finished by August, tops.

    Parent

    I am not sure (none / 0) (#126)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:12:57 PM EST
    I sincerely believe that Hillary would not even be able to even bring the bill so far, forget about having the whole thing finished in August. HRC never told us what Universal Health Care would cost, I am almost certain that many Democratic members of the House and Senate would be very comfortable knocking it down as "Hillarycare" while disassociating themselves from the Bill, saying that they were never consulted.


    Parent
    No one is aiming for Universal Health Care (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 08:04:00 PM EST
    this is an insurance bill...no care included.

    Parent
    That's funny; thanks. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    You have to factor in which were the issues in each election, you know. And, of course, you have to factor in some other election issues in 1960 (including issues about the election itself).

    But the comparison to 1992 well may be apt -- not in 2008, when there was no incumbent to have to face the issue of the economy, but in 2012.

    Parent

    The two major factors in 1960, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    iirc, were for Kennedy the debates and, second, against him his religion.  JFK lost millions to the many anti-Catholic Dem Protestant voters.

    The experience factor had been neutralized by Kennedy in the debates.

    In 1992 Clinton had plenty of exec experience, Rhodes Scholar smarts also, which tended to neutralize Poppy's VP and P experience.  He just lacked in the military service area and got nailed for it in the draft avoidance area.  People though were more than ready for a change after 12 yrs of Repub governance and a seemingly disinterested on the economy U-class Poppy presidency.

    Parent

    Religion was so huge in 1960 (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    that it really requires rereading the reporting then, the studies of that time, to understand the context.  One telling example was that JFK won his first primary in the state, a highly Catholic state, that then did not go for him in the general -- because in the interim, the anti-Catholic campaign ramped up to horrible levels.  I remember it well, as a Catholic kid then in that state. . . .

    Parent
    Let us be fair (none / 0) (#78)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:33:20 PM EST
    I do not disagree with what you wrote. However let me also point out the following
    (1) The experience factor between McCain and Obama was totally neutralized by Obama during the debates.
    (2) If GWB looked out of touch with people in 1992, McCain also did the same in 2008.

    Some people in TL like to pretend that Obama was handed the Presidency, that there was no debate, no resistance to his candidacies during the primaries and the GE. This is a big fat lie that brainwashed Clintonbots believe, it has no basis on facts.

    Parent

    2008 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    As far as economic policy was concerned, the candidacies of John McCain and Sarah Palin were the third term of Bush and Cheney.
    I think people like you are more concerned about personalities, not policies. Obama and HRC's policies were the same and McCain and Bush's policies were the same on economic matters. It is ironic that your infatuation with personality based politics does not enable you to see policy matters with an uncluttered mind.
    You are not the only Clinton supporter who is so caught up in the cult of personality based politics. I have seen a strong disdain for Pres. Carter among hardcore Clinton supporters, though he was more liberal than Clinton on most issues. It shows again that some of the loudest Clinton supporters care more about personalities than policies.
     

    Parent
    You keep getting funnier (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    I supported Clinton for anything but "personality" reasons -- and opposed Obama for anything but "personality" reasons.  Keep digging your hole deeper; I'm enjoying this!

    Parent
    No Cream City, (1.33 / 3) (#75)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    it is you who is getting funnier. I am letting out some of the hot air from your balloon while you are continuing to dig deeper.
    You are so caught up in your cult of personalty politics that up is down and black is white to you.

    Parent
    Buh bye; I won't engage (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    in your obvious blogclogging.  Or a bad hair day.  Whichever.

    Parent
    He is correct though from a long term (none / 0) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:26:55 AM EST
    point of view.  

    Assuming we get out of the woods in the next 1-2 years, we simply must become more export oriented and less consumer driven.  The world's economies were totally out of balance for the past 10 years, and is one of the reasons for the deep recession.  After all, you wouldn't have so much debt destruction without so much extra debt piled on.

    I even think that the short term and long term go hand in hand.  A credible plan to shrink the deficit and re-balance the economy  that starts in 5 years would make it easier to sell more short term stimumlus to a very skeptical public.  The long term must be planned for--that gives us more options in the short term.

    In the long run (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    we're dead.

    Stevie, I never took you for an Obama Bot.

    Hell, imagine rejecting TARP on these grounds?  

    Parent

    I assume most people would not want Obama to (none / 0) (#16)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    escalate in Afghanistan without an exit strategy.

    Why should economic policy be any different?  I want him to spend ($500B) more on a jobs bill.  But why can't we also want some clearly defined criteria for reducing deficits in the future? Say, tax hikes that take effect after 4 quarters of 4% GDP growth or something like that.  Why not $50B a year less on the military--I don't think blowing holes in foreign sand to be too stimulative.

    As to TARP, well, we've already had the TARP vs nationalization debate.  I'll leave it there.

    Obamabot?  I have to laugh.  I'd like to think I provide a counterpoint to almost 100% of your commenters here--which vary from "he sucks" to "he really sucks".

    And lastly, every president has talked about reducing the deficit.  It's like the "strong dollar policy".  As a wise blogger once said, "watch what they do, not what they say".

    Parent

    Why indeed? (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    But you know and I know it is.

    Suppose that the emphasis in September 2008 had been on deficit reduction.

    Tell me how you sell TARP?

    Why are you acting obtuse on this?

    Interest rates are at the zero bound. Unemployment is over 10%.

    Do you REALLY think the pressing issue of the day is deficit reduction? Really?

    Come the eff on.


    Parent

    I think you are being disingenuous regarding (none / 0) (#24)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:51:46 AM EST
    the word "emphasis".

    Have you ever used Wordle?  (www.wordle.com)  It lets you paste any text into a box and generate a word cloud to see which words are used a lot and emphasised.

    Just for fun, I just pasted in the weekly address.  Here is a link to it:
     Obama address word cloud

    Look at it, and then tell me what was emphasised in the address.

    Parent

    What comes first (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    discussion of the deficit or discussion of jobs?

    I think you are being an Obama Bot.

    Parent

    Ok, let's see: (none / 0) (#29)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    1st paragraph:
    Hi.  I'm recording this message from Seoul, South Korea, as I finish up my first presidential trip to Asia.  As we emerge from the worst recession in generations, there is nothing more important than to do everything we can to get our economy moving again and put Americans back to work, and I will go anywhere to pursue that goal.

    4th paragraph:

    But above all, I spoke with leaders in every nation I visited about what we can do to sustain this economic recovery and bring back jobs and prosperity for our people - a task I will continue to focus on relentlessly in the weeks and months ahead.  

    Your excerpt is paragraph 5.  Oh, and then paragraph 6 discusses how increasing our exports adds to jobs.

    Parent

    Which poaragraph discusses (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    policy first.

    Saying we want jobs and then saying the way to get them is by reducing the deficit?

    My gawd, stevie.  

    Parent

    Here is the text (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    Remarks of President Barack Obama
    Weekly Address
    Saturday, November 21, 2009

    Hi.  I'm recording this message from Seoul, South Korea, as I finish up my first presidential trip to Asia.  As we emerge from the worst recession in generations, there is nothing more important than to do everything we can to get our economy moving again and put Americans back to work, and I will go anywhere to pursue that goal.

    That's one of the main reasons I took this trip.  Asia is a region where we now buy more goods and do more trade with than any other place in the world - commerce that supports millions of jobs back home.  It's also a place where the risk of a nuclear arms race threatens our security, and where extremists plan attacks on America's soil.  And since this region includes some of the fastest-growing nations, there can be no solution to the challenge of climate change without the cooperation of the Asia Pacific.

    With this in mind, I traveled to Asia to open a new era of American engagement.  We made progress with China and Russia in sending a unified message to Iran and North Korea that they must live up to their international obligations and either forsake nuclear weapons or face the consequences.  As the two largest consumers and producers of energy, we developed a host of new clean energy initiatives with China, and our two nations agreed to work toward a successful outcome at the upcoming climate summit in Copenhagen - an outcome that leads to immediate action to reduce carbon pollution.  And I spoke to young men and women at a town hall in Shanghai and across the internet about certain values that we in America believe are universal:  the freedom of worship and speech; the right to access information and choose one's own leaders.

    But above all, I spoke with leaders in every nation I visited about what we can do to sustain this economic recovery and bring back jobs and prosperity for our people - a task I will continue to focus on relentlessly in the weeks and months ahead.

    This recession has taught us that we can't return to a situation where America's economic growth is fueled by consumers who take on more and more debt.  In order to keep growing, we need to spend less, save more, and get our federal deficit under control.  We also need to place a greater emphasis on exports that we can build, produce, and sell to other nations - exports that can help create new jobs at home and raise living standards throughout the world.

    For example, if we can increase our exports to Asia Pacific nations by just 5%, we can increase the number of American jobs supported by these exports by hundreds of thousands.  This is already happening with businesses like American Superconductor Corporation, an energy technology startup based in Massachusetts that's been providing wind power and smart grid systems to countries like China, Korea, and India.  By doing so, it's added more than 100 jobs over the last few years.

    Increasing our exports is one way to create new jobs and new prosperity.  But as we emerge from a recession that has left millions without work, we have an obligation to consider every additional, responsible step we can take to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country. That's why I've announced that in the next few weeks, we'll be holding a forum at the White House on jobs and economic growth. I want to hear from CEOs and small business owners, economists and financial experts, as well as representatives from labor unions and nonprofit groups, about what they think we can do to spur hiring and get this economy moving again.

    It is important that we do not make any ill-considered decisions - even with the best of intentions - particularly at a time when our resources are so limited.  But it is just as important that we are open to any demonstrably good idea to supplement the steps we've already taken to put America back to work.  That's what I hope to achieve in this forum.

    Parent

    I guess if reading the whole address as more (none / 0) (#35)
    by steviez314 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:15:33 PM EST
    balanced than your excerpt makes me an Bot, then so be it.  At least I read the whole address before commenting, so I'm not a knee-jerk Bot.

    But, US consumers ARE tapped out, and even with more gov't stimulus, the best way to create jobs will be with a more export oriented economy.

    Of course the only problem with that is China's continuing mercantilist economic policy and the Hans Hoovers in Germany.

    Parent

    [Emphasis added.] (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:47:47 PM EST
    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    There was no TARP vs nationalization debate.

    There was a nationalization vs PPIP debate.

    Frankly, nothing has been settled on that score in terms of the health of the banks.

    I think it is well decided in terms of national plicy - Geithner course has been disastrous for the national economy precisely because banks are not lending.  

    Parent

    We could always follow (none / 0) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:00:22 PM EST
    the Bush plan and bust the budget to an even greater extent. It's pretty obvious where that got us.

    Sorry, I agree with what occurred during the eight years of Clinton. Reduction of the deficit is definitely beneficial. Otherwise, you're just putting an addition on the Bush financial house of cards.

    Then you (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    have no clue.

    you are comparing 1993 and its economic situation - regarding employment, interests and the deficit, with today?

    Clueless.

    Parent

    And you think (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    greatly expanding your spending when you are already in a financial hole is beneficial.

    I'd call that clueless.

    Parent

    Greatly expanding (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    government expenditures in a time of severely depressed aggregate demand is textbook macroeconomics.

    You clearly have no knowledge of economic history, Hooverism, FDR, the Great Depression, etc.

    You sound like a Tea Bagger.

    Parent

    You nailed it (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    I'm a Palin/Beck teabagger.

    The Conference Board's composite of ten leading indicators have risen for seven consecutive months showing the recession probably ended last May.

    Job growth historically lags behind initial economic growth coming out of a recession with the last two recessions showing 15 and 19 month lags. Bush did a lot of damage, and that kind of damage takes time to fix when you want to fix it properly.

    Parent

    All right (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:49:46 PM EST
    You are from the economy is fixed school apparently.

    You are from there is not severely depressed aggregate demand school.

    You are from we do not need a jobs targeted second stimulus school.

    You are from the "now the problem is the deficit" school.

    Fair enough.

    To me that makes you insane. YMMV.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    that means I'm patient. You're from the politicians school of...I have to inflate things to look good because there is an election coming up.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    Patient are you? Well, as I said, you think we are on a good trajectory in the economy now and favor cutting the deficit by reduced spending.

    To me, that is insane, not patient.

    Parent

    You're arguing with the clueless. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:25:20 PM EST
     The fastest way to kick start the economy is to get our citizens to spend more, but that doesn't have to mean them taking on more debt. Why, in G*d's name do we have billions of dollars to finance Goldman Sach's arbitrage in the risk-free carry trade, helping no one but the executives, and to a lesser extent their shareholders? They have handed the "Masters" an actual alchemy machine flooding those immoral slobs with hundreds of millions of dollars weekly.....without even a tiny residual benefit to our struggling population.

    Obama could turn off the spigot tomorrow,  and only turn it back on if the banks produce  a plan linking  loans, and loan guarantees to lending money to small & medium size business; i.e. job creation.


    Parent

    At least we can agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    that the Gators played a good first half. Thankfully ESPN 360 has the game so I didn't have to resort to PPV.

    Parent
    what gives money ANY value? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    Nothing but the thoughts of people like us. And when our thoughts are bad, which they are now in droves, guess what happens to the value of money? The only thing that matters with money, THE ONLY THING, is perception of the populace as to it's equitable disbursement and use. And right now money is nothing more than casino chips filling the pockets of whales. The rest of us can drop dead apparently.

    Parent
    What would Bill do? (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    He's only a phone call away...

    he'd leave it in the hands of the Randian (none / 0) (#83)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    economists. Which is what caused this house of cards in the first place.

    Here's what Obama should do:

    Listen to Brooksley Born.

    Parent

    Wow. This economy is all (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    a Clinton's fault!?!  Well, that didn't take long.

    Yes...some folks should listen to Ms. Born.  Let's start with the congress...the Democrats in congress.  You know, the ones who make the regulations and write the laws and could corral these wild horses...almost a year and they've done nothing to protect us from being Sached again.  Nothing.  Obama has done nothing.

    You think Bill would stand for that?  Not in 5 million years.  He knows a class war when he sees one.

    Parent

    not Clinton...Greenspan and the (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    Randians that, yes, were in Clinton's administration.

    Dr. Born went before congress fighting for regulation in the 90s and Reich and Summers destroyed her credibility and stripped her independent govt agency of it's ability to regulate derivatives.

    It was a bitter pill for me to take, but we have to face it.

    Source: Frontline.

    Parent

    Yikes! (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:02:21 PM EST
    Good grief.  Robert Reich had absolutely nothing to do with sinking Brooksley Born, he was Labor Secretary.

    Get your facts and names straight, please.  I assume you mean Robert Rubin.  If you can't even keep the key players in the economy back then straight, it makes any "analysis" you might offer worthless.

    Parent

    Yes I got the name wrong (none / 0) (#122)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    but are you denying that Rubin had a role in sinking  Born? Are you denying that Rubin was a member of the Clinton team?

    Yikes yourself...this is not my analysis...it's the analysis of Frontline.

    Parent

    I see the problem (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    You can't read.  At all.  You just make stuff up.

    Parent
    What is your problem? (none / 0) (#152)
    by coigue on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    Seriously? I don't really get why you are in attack mode. Greenspan admitted his mistakes (fairly recently) and he went before congress with members of Clinton's treasury to strip Brooksley Born's authority to regulate derivatives.

    My mistaking a name does not change that.

    Parent

    I always get the 'Roberts' wrong.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:10:09 PM EST
    I woner why the link disappeared? (none / 0) (#125)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    And PS...Obama relies on the (none / 0) (#105)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    Randians too....every pol does, and it needs to stop.

    Just for clarification that's "Ayn Randians"

    Parent

    Sigh....Atlas wasn't the only one (none / 0) (#120)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 05:38:59 PM EST
    who shrugged.

    Parent
    I ain't shrugging (none / 0) (#123)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:07:01 PM EST
    I am tearing my hair out. Brooksley Born predicted the last meltdown, and she is warning another if we don't get serious about reigning in Wall St.

    Parent
    I didn't mean you...I meant me. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:15:59 PM EST
    And yes...I agree...it doesn't look good.  Some of my formerly favorite elected Democrats are looking pretty pathetic right now.  The silence is deafening.

    Along with Frontline, did you catch the LBJ/Vietnam

    Parent

    Oops...con't....tapes? (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:16:56 PM EST
    No...but I am sure I should (none / 0) (#129)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:19:09 PM EST
    Frontnline for me is the best.

    Parent
    Look it up on Bill Moyers. (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 06:29:44 PM EST
    The parallels to Obama's choices re Afghanistan are striking.  It's a timely rerun...the politics of the war-crazed Rs, the impossible political choices of the president, the advice of the military and the trusted advisors (from McNamara to Richard Russell).

    Just terrific.

    Parent

    I take it you read that (none / 0) (#61)
    by robotalk on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    as Obama saying there will not be another stimulus. I don't read it that way.

    He's right about debt.  Instead of using debt, citizens should have jobs that pay well.  The creation of such may be what he means by the second part of what he says.  

    But, obviously this is politspeak, and is hence hard to pin down as to what it actually means in terms of what will be done.

    TEFRA (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:37:02 PM EST


    13% ue (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:40:20 PM EST
    even if a jobs bill is passed, ue will still be 12% before a dime can be spent.  I am all for budget cuts provided that all money in tarp is repaid immediately, interest rate for banks moves to the same interest rates they give to high risk borrowers and we get a tax package like TEFRA.

    It is no fun suffering alone we just want some company.....

    I guess we all should have (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 08:15:57 AM EST
    believed him when he said that New Deal Economics don't work.  He really believes it.  I read something recently that labeled him the radical middle.  When everyone is in the midst of extreme suffering, I wonder what he thinks he'll say that will get him reelected?