Is Obama a Marxist?

[kmcgraw5]

Sure sounds like it...

See http://groups.google.com/group/cp-news-n-views/browse_thread/thread/e545348cd535e3c4

[J.Q. Citizen]

Sure sounds like it...

See http://groups.google.com/group/cp-news-n-views/browse_thread/thread/e545348cd535e3c4

Thanks a lot Kevin. Now I have to go get that vurp taste out of my mouth. Man, have you ever seen such a pretentious, preposterous, pathetically "poopy" piece of pointless propaganda?

While I personally believe that Obama is indeed a Marxist, I think some may argue that this article, by itself, only indicates that Marxists support Obama. Of course, I would counter that it can't be a good thing that Marxists believe that Obama will help them achieve their goals.

[kmcgraw5]

While I personally believe that Obama is indeed a Marxist, I think some may argue that this article, by itself, only indicates that Marxists support Obama. Of course, I would counter that it can't be a good thing that Marxists believe that Obama will help them achieve their goals.

My point, exactly. But, out of respect for the other side's belief that he's not, that's why I made the title of the thread a question, rather than an imperative. But I still believe that he is and always has been, and that this article most certainly supports that conclusion...

[J.Q. Citizen]

My point, exactly. But, out of respect for the other side's belief that he's not, that's why I made the title of the thread a question, rather than an imperative. But I still believe that he is and always has been, and that this article most certainly supports that conclusion...

Well, it certain left a bad taste in my mouth.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Here's a little bit more evidence. One of heroes of Obama...of Hillary too for that matter, is man named Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a Marxist and community organizer. He wrote a book called Rules for Radicals which outlined a method by which someone with a far left agenda could work within the American political system to attain power and work towards serious....you got it...."change".

Below are a couple of passages from that book. As you read them, consider the current attacks and demonetization on Rush Limbaugh by the Democrats initiated and orchestrated by the minions of Obama; Paul Begala, James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Rahm Emanuel.

• But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and "singl[e] out" precisely who is to blame for the "particular evil" that is the source of the people's angst. In other words, there must be a face associated with the people's discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, "must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall." Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president. [Such as Rush Limbaugh - "Head of the Republican Party"????]
• Alinsky summarized it this way: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks." He held that the organizer's task was to cultivate in people's hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. "The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification," said Alinsky, "will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. [Such as defending and debating the stimulus and omnibus??]With few exceptions this is a futile procedure."
• Moreover, said Alinsky, whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength," said Alinsky. He advised organizers to "laugh at the enemy" in an effort to provoke "an irrational anger."
"Ridicule," said Alinsky, "is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage."

[kmcgraw5]

Hey Jane/Ninja Mom (and all the other libs on this blog), please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/opinion/05Cohen.html?_r=1

Is this what you voted for? Are you starting to feel a little bit queasy too? I hope so, because this is where our illustrious leader is leading us...

[J.Q. Citizen]

Hey Jane/Ninja Mom, please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/opinion/05Cohen.html?_r=1

Is this what you voted for? Are you starting to feel a little bit queasy too? I hope so, because this is where our illustrious leader is leading us...

You KNOW it's bad when an anti-Reagan, anti-capitalism, pro-Obama guy recognizes where this country is heading and rejects it.

[JaneBlow]

Hey Jane/Ninja Mom (and all the other libs on this blog), please read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/opinion/05Cohen.html?_r=1

Is this what you voted for? Are you starting to feel a little bit queasy too? I hope so, because this is where our illustrious leader is leading us...

The article was not particularly disturbing to me. I think it's obvious that Obama inherited multiple crises which require bold action. There is value in looking to history and comparing this situation with others and learning from them, but the fact it, there is no exact comparison. There is no playbook for where we find ourselves today.

I found the following comment interesting:

"We are told that the collapse of A.I.G. would pose a “systemic risk,” but it would be a tonic to my particular system if someone in the Obama administration could explain why in plain language."

I wonder if we're now trying to rescue AIG's trading partners as this article suggests.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY_hCygOzVGA&refer=home

If we want to learn from history, I think we should be asking how we let an insurance company get so big and so far from its core business? How is it that a house market collapse caused the world's largest insurance company to fail?

[kmcgraw5]

The article was not particularly disturbing to me. I think it's obvious that Obama inherited multiple crises which require bold action. There is value in looking to history and comparing this situation with others and learning from them, but the fact it, there is no exact comparison. There is no playbook for where we find ourselves today.

I'm truly flabbergasted. You've actually left me speechless, Jane; I honestly don't know how to respond to this. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're actually OK with the idea of living in a country like France, where there is more incentive to not work than there is to work and be productive, rather than living in a country like America used to be, where in spite of its flaws, was the most free, productive, and yes, envied country in the world. This saddens me more than anything else because, despite your apparent acceptance of this possibility, I don't believe that's what most Americans who voted for Mr. Obama had in mind at all. No one envies France, Jane; except maybe you...

[J.Q. Citizen]

The article was not particularly disturbing to me. I think it's obvious that Obama inherited multiple crises which require bold action. There is value in looking to history and comparing this situation with others and learning from them, but the fact it, there is no exact comparison. There is no playbook for where we find ourselves today.

I found the following comment interesting:

"We are told that the collapse of A.I.G. would pose a “systemic risk,” but it would be a tonic to my particular system if someone in the Obama administration could explain why in plain language."

I wonder if we're now trying to rescue AIG's trading partners as this article suggests.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY_hCygOzVGA&refer=home

If we want to learn from history, I think we should be asking how we let an insurance company get so big and so far from its core business? How is it that a house market collapse caused the world's largest insurance company to fail?
It's late and I have to be up early tomorrow so I'll make this quick. I have not checked out the link you provided Jane but I will tomorrow. I have no idea if it pertains to what I'm about to say or not.

I have to admit that, like Kevin, I'm a little flabbergasted also but for more than just the reason he feels that way.

First, are you actually suggesting that, outside the scope of anti-trust and monopoly laws, that it is the responsibility of government to limit the size of any business? How exactly would you accomplish that?

Second, do you seriously not understand how the the housing market affected AIG? What do you mean that it got so far from its core business? Insurance IS its core business. Long story short. In order to create mortgage backed securities that contained a variety of mortgages ranging from sub-prime to prime, the riskier loans had to be insured against default. AIG was a provider of such insurance. When, due to the extraordinarily high number of defaults, the value of the defaulted loans covered by AIG exceeded their available assets....CRASH.

[J.Q. Citizen]

An absolutely brilliant analysis by Charles Krauthammer.


The Great Non Sequitur
The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 6, 2009; Page A15

Forget the pork. Forget the waste. Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Forget all of this. This is run-of-the-mill budget trickery. True, Obama's tricks come festooned with strings of zeros tacked onto the end. But that's a matter of scale, not principle.

All presidents do that. But few undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.

The logic of Obama's address to Congress went like this:

"Our economy did not fall into decline overnight," he averred. Indeed, it all began before the housing crisis. What did we do wrong? We are paying for past sins in three principal areas: energy, health care and education -- importing too much oil and not finding new sources of energy (as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf?), not reforming health care, and tolerating too many bad schools.

The "day of reckoning" has arrived. And because "it is only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we'll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament," Obama has come to redeem us with his far-seeing program of universal, heavily nationalized health care; a cap-and-trade tax on energy; and a major federalization of education with universal access to college as the goal.

Amazing. As an explanation of our current economic difficulties, this is total fantasy. As a cure for rapidly growing joblessness, a massive destruction of wealth, a deepening worldwide recession, this is perhaps the greatest non sequitur ever foisted upon the American people.

At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.

The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe.

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing-in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

[J.Q. Citizen]

The article was not particularly disturbing to me. I think it's obvious that Obama inherited multiple crises which require bold action. There is value in looking to history and comparing this situation with others and learning from them, but the fact it, there is no exact comparison. There is no playbook for where we find ourselves today.

I found the following comment interesting:

"We are told that the collapse of A.I.G. would pose a “systemic risk,” but it would be a tonic to my particular system if someone in the Obama administration could explain why in plain language."

I wonder if we're now trying to rescue AIG's trading partners as this article suggests.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aY_hCygOzVGA&refer=home



And here is the quote from your article that concerns me:

[Senate Banking] Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd called the government handling of AIG “sickening.”

“It’s not clear who we’re rescuing, whether it is whatever remains of AIG or its trading partners,” said Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut. “The lack of transparency and accountability throughout this process has been stunning.”

Does Criminal Congressman Dodd not understand that he is referring to himself? Seriously, doesn't he have a hand in this transparency and accountability deficiency? Why is it not clear who we are rescuing? Isn't he intimately involved? Why are we allowing the very people who allowed, if not caused, all of this to happen to portray themselves as our protectors and saviors? Just how stupid does he think we are? I agree...it's sickening alright...but not in the way he means it.

And for the record, I do NOT consider spending us and our children into oblivion as "bold action". McCain describes this as "generational theft". I'm inclined to agree.

I have to ask you Jane, what specific bold action do you see Obama taking that specifically addresses the economic issues we face?

[kmcgraw5]

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing-in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

What's going on? "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," said chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. "This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Things. Now we know what they are. The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

Again, I ask all you Obama supporters out there; is this really what you voted for!?!?!

[billspiz]

I didnt vote based on the selected words of a noted conservative journalist...it would be no different than me selecting words written by Bruce Morton and asking you if you would base Republican voting decisions on his writings.

I voted based on my beliefs in the party and the individual...yes I voted for President Obama

[kmcgraw5]

I didnt vote based on the selected words of a noted conservative journalist...it would be no different than me selecting words written by Bruce Morton and asking you if you would base Republican voting decisions on his writings.

I voted based on my beliefs in the party and the individual...yes I voted for President Obama

As a lawyer, I simply cannot resist. Objection: answer non-responsive and irrelevant...

[J.Q. Citizen]

I didnt vote based on the selected words of a noted conservative journalist...it would be no different than me selecting words written by Bruce Morton and asking you if you would base Republican voting decisions on his writings.

I voted based on my beliefs in the party and the individual...yes I voted for President Obama

So then, of course, you can illustrate what was wrong with either the facts as presented or the logical conclusions drawn from them?

I don't think Kevin was asking if you would vote for Obama based on this assessment. I don't think he was asking if you did indeed vote for Obama. I believe he is asking if what you are getting is what you were hoping for when you voted. In other words, are you satisfied with getting an administration that is apparently more concerned with furthering an agenda than it is with directly addressing the systemic causes of the economic crisis?

[J.Q. Citizen]

As a lawyer, I simply cannot resist. Objection: answer non-responsive and irrelevant...

LOL...priceless. Alas, I'm afraid it will not be taken for the light-hearted moment it was intended to be.

[billspiz]

then ask the specific question!...

sorry JQ...my telepathic powers of understanding what the real question is just don't work like yours do I presume...

and alas..I did take the response for what it was meant,...but one could argue if the question did not have a clear meaning..how could the response be irrelevant??

[kmcgraw5]

Alas, you're probably right. But you did sufficiently point out the more detailed basis of my objection. Thank you, your honor... ;)

[J.Q. Citizen]

Alas, you're probably right. But you did sufficiently point out the more detailed basis of my objection. Thank you, your honor... ;)

Well, I'm always hesitant to translate the words of others lest I put words in their mouth but I figured I'd give it a shot and you could always correct me if I was wrong :)

[J.Q. Citizen]

then ask the specific question!...

sorry JQ...my telepathic powers of understanding what the real question is just don't work like yours do I presume...

and alas..I did take the response for what it was meant,...but one could argue if the question did not have a clear meaning..how could the response be irrelevant??

Per your request, the specific question:

In other words, are you satisfied with getting an administration that is apparently more concerned with furthering an agenda than it is with directly addressing the systemic causes of the economic crisis?

[JaneBlow]

Again, I ask all you Obama supporters out there; is this really what you voted for!?!?!

Bill is right. It's a trick question. We didn't vote for what the author describes because what he describes is not reality. It may be his perception, but it is dead wrong.

He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that.

Do you think government spending is needed or not? Are you proposing we only lower taxes and that's it? Or are you proposing we do nothing?

If we are going to spend, let's invest in our future.

And Obama's central message has always been that the spending and tax cuts are not enough. We have to stabilize and reform our financial system.

He said in his address to Congress:

"It’s a plan [American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan] that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of anything goes that helped create it – and this change must begin in Washington. It is time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America.

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
. . .

Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full ****nal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors, and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust."
-- Barack Obama

[J.Q. Citizen]

Bill is right. It's a trick question. We didn't vote for what the author describes because what he describes is not reality. It may be his perception, but it is dead wrong.

He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that.

Do you think government spending is needed or not? Are you proposing we only lower taxes and that's it? Or are you proposing we do nothing?

If we are going to spend, let's invest in our future.

And Obama's central message has always been that the spending and tax cuts are not enough. We have to stabilize and reform our financial system.

He said in his address to Congress:

"It’s a plan [American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan] that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of anything goes that helped create it – and this change must begin in Washington. It is time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America.

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
. . .

Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full ****nal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors, and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust."
-- Barack Obama
Gotta eat. More on this later. Only one point for now.

Government does not invest, it spends.

Okay, two points. Then perhaps you can point out specifically what was wrong with the analysis of Krauthammer?

Sigh...third and last point. "only government can..." TOTAL BUNK...in my opinion.

[JaneBlow]

Gotta eat. More on this later. Only one point for now.

Government does not invest, it spends.

Okay, two points. Then perhaps you can point out specifically what was wrong with the analysis of Krauthammer?

Sigh...third and last point. "only government can..." TOTAL BUNK...in my opinion.

If you build a road or a bridge or a water treatment plant or a college, it is an investment in our future.

I did point out what was wrong with the article. "He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that."

Ok, then who other than government can "provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe"? Let's hear your plan.

[kmcgraw5]

If you build a road or a bridge or a water treatment plant or a college, it is an investment in our future.

I did point out what was wrong with the article. "He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that."

Ok, then who other than government can "provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe"? Let's hear your plan.

No, its not a trick question; its a matter of priorities. Assuming only for the sake of argument that their are crises in Healthcare, energy, and education, they are not the most pressing crises that need to be adressed right now. The financial crisis is the most pressing crisis that needs to be addressed because it is the fundamental reason the economy is tanking right now. Until he presents a plan -- any plan -- that will have a reasonable chance at success, he and his administration need to put these other issues on the back burner. That's why the stock market continues to go down everytime he or one of his officials opens their mouths; because the markets have no faith that he or his economic advisors have even a clue about what they are doing. While Nero fiddles, Rome is burning...

[billspiz]

I thought the stock market is just going to correct itself no matter what the President has to say?...isnt that the thought of the free market?..:)

[kmcgraw5]

I thought the stock market is just going to correct itself no matter what the President has to say?...isnt that the thought of the free market?..:)

Who ever said this was a free market... We haven't had a relatively free market in this country since LBJ started his "Great Society"...

[J.Q. Citizen]

If you build a road or a bridge or a water treatment plant or a college, it is an investment in our future.

Okay, I will concede that "invest" is a term that can be used by both sides to a certain extent but not in the truest sense of the word and not in the way the current administration uses it. There is no "return" as it is commonly used. If you build a road or a bridge, the citizens have a means to commute and engage in commerce but that is not exactly a return on your investment. It is simply fulfilling the role of government. I will concede that to a certain extent, spending on energy and transportation infrastructure could result in increased revenues but those are about the only instances and I believe it's almost a stretch. If you build a water treatment plant you provide clean drinking water to the citizens. Another proper role of government but again, not an investment as such. If I diaper my child I am fulfilling my proper role as a parent but I am not getting a return on the money I spent on the diaper. I guess you could try to make the case that by not neglecting that child or by loving that child the result is a happy and productive adult but I would argue that that does not fit the ROI model. I guess, if it was a for-profit college then you might have a point. But again, all of these could arguably fit into a fairly universal definition of the proper role of government. However, they do have one characteristic that separates them from much of the remainder of government spending...other than maintenance, they are a singular expense.

I did point out what was wrong with the article. "He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that."

Oh, well...that certainly clears it up for me. Krauthammer's analysis is wrong because Jane said so. Got it.

Ok, then who other than government can "provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe"? Let's hear your plan.

I have repeated my plan here ad nauseum. However, I will elaborate even further.

In September, when the full significance of the crisis became apparent and the government started scrambling because our economy was in danger of imminent collapse, I took that to mean that we had 6 months or less. We had the first bailout with no noticeable improvement and arguably more of a decline. Obama has yet to present a plan to address the acknowledged root causes. Furthermore, many government officials and many experts have stated that they don't even truly know the full scope and scale of the crisis. Therefore, I would submit that the situation is not as dire as predicted or, at the very least, no on truly knows what to do to fix it. So, I stand by what I've said so many times before. Immediate tax cuts, use a much smaller portion of the bailouts and/or stimulus to give employers and employees a 50% reduction in FICA and put that money directly into SS, repeal M2M, reinstate the uptick rule and wait for a little while to see how the economy and the market responds. I don't care what anyone says, the stimulus is essentially a gamble. There are some liberal economists that believe it wasn't enough money but the fact is...no one knows. Regardless, there is nothing in history that indicates that such a huge spending plan will have any kind of beneficial results and everything to suggest that it will fail. The government should stop giving the impression of being knee-jerk reactive, take the proactive steps I suggested above and see what happens. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that what has been done or proposed thus far has had anything but a negative effect. How much worse could it be if we took those suggestions?

[J.Q. Citizen]

Who ever said this was a free market... We haven't had a relatively free market in this country since LBJ started his "Great Society"...

I think I would be inclined to go back to FDR...but that's just me. But you're right, LBJ's impact was significant.

[J.Q. Citizen]

I thought the stock market is just going to correct itself no matter what the President has to say?...isnt that the thought of the free market?..:)

Are you saying that you do not understand the significance of the role a president has on the stock market? The market is all about speculation. Including speculations as to what government will do to either inhibit or enable (one of Jane's favorite words) private enterprise.

Take for instance his attack on healthcare the other day. He intimated that private healthcare would have to compete with government sponsored healthcare. That's ridiculous. How can anyone hope to compete with an entity than can print their own money and essentially has unlimited resources??????

[J.Q. Citizen]

Here is yet another opinion piece about how Obama has essentially pulled a fast one.
__________________________________________________ ________

Barack Obama won the presidency in large measure because he presented himself as a demarcation point. The old politics, he said, was based on "spin," misleading arguments, and an absence of candor. He'd "turn the page" on that style of politics.

Last week's presentation of his budget shows that hope was a mirage.

For example, Mr. Obama didn't run promising larger deficits -- but now is offering record-setting ones. He'll add $4.9 trillion before his term ends and $7.4 trillion if given a second, doubling the national debt in five years and tripling it in 10. Mr. Obama's deficits will be much larger than he admits because he relies on rosy economic assumptions and gimmicks that mask spending and debt (like assuming popular new programs he supports won't be renewed).

Nor did Mr. Obama run promising more earmarks. Instead, he said he'd reform the earmark culture and "scour the federal budget, line by line, and make meaningful cuts." Now he wants to wave through a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with about 8,500 earmarks. This is on top of the $787 billion stimulus bill signed into law two weeks ago.

His justification comes to us from the White House's budget director, Peter Orszag, who recently called the omnibus spending bill "last year's business." But it will fund the federal government for the next six months. Mr. Obama could veto the legislation or push congressional Democrats to ditch the earmarks. But he has given little indication that he will do either.

Nor is it credible to claim that the spending spree on Mr. Obama's watch is someone else's responsibility, as Mr. Orszag did by saying the president had "inherited" these deficits.

Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the stimulus bill that is history's largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next fiscal year.

Mr. Obama cannot dismiss critics by pointing to President George W. Bush's decision to run $2.9 trillion in deficits while fighting two wars and dealing with 9/11 and Katrina. Mr. Obama will surpass Mr. Bush's eight-year total in his first 20 months and 11 days in office, adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt. If America "cannot and will not sustain" deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?
There is more. Mr. Obama pledged "no tax hikes on any families earning less than a quarter million dollars." What he didn't draw attention to was $600 billion in higher energy taxes he wants to impose through a cap-and-trade system on carbon emissions. These taxes will hit everyone who drives, flips a light switch, or buys anything manufactured, grown or shipped.

Mr. Obama devoted four times as much space in his campaign stump speech to cutting taxes as he did to talking about raising taxes on the wealthy. In the election's most widely watched speech, his Denver Convention address, he didn't even mention raising taxes, instead stressing he'd "cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families." Yet higher taxes are what every American is going to get.

Today's White House health-care summit should also remind us of one of Mr. Obama's most popular ads, which declared, "On health care reform -- two extremes. On one end, government-run health care, higher taxes. On the other, insurance companies without rules, denying coverage. Barack Obama says both extremes are wrong."

Mr. Obama's plan will lead us to the extreme of government-run health care. And in an effort to reach that goal, Mr. Obama's budget proposes, as a starting point, a $630 billion fund to expand government-run health care. And that $630 billion comes not from reduced spending, but higher taxes.

Mr. Obama's personal popularity remains higher than support for his proposals. A raft of opinion surveys show Americans take the conservative side on issues ranging from the efficacy of government spending, to nationalization of banks, to bailouts for auto companies, to whether tax cuts or government spending will create more jobs. Packaging Mr. Obama's proposals is easier than rigorously defending them. Team Obama will find this out as the details of their budget and other plans are scrutinized.

Barack Obama has been president for a little more than five weeks. During his speech to a joint session of Congress last week, he showed what a skilled speaker he is and how persuasive he can be. But words delivered from a teleprompter, while important, have to line up with actions. Promises have to be met. And a president who promised to be one thing cannot be another. At some point, the gap between good feelings and results, between perception and reality, closes.

Eloquent words and "spin" work better in a campaign than they do while governing. And as Mr. Obama is discovering, the laws of economics won't change, even for him.

[JaneBlow]

Okay, I will concede that "invest" is a term that can be used by both sides to a certain extent but not in the truest sense of the word and not in the way the current administration uses it. There is no "return" as it is commonly used. If you build a road or a bridge, the citizens have a means to commute and engage in commerce but that is not exactly a return on your investment. It is simply fulfilling the role of government. I will concede that to a certain extent, spending on energy and transportation infrastructure could result in increased revenues but those are about the only instances and I believe it's almost a stretch. If you build a water treatment plant you provide clean drinking water to the citizens. Another proper role of government but again, not an investment as such. If I diaper my child I am fulfilling my proper role as a parent but I am not getting a return on the money I spent on the diaper. I guess you could try to make the case that by not neglecting that child or by loving that child the result is a happy and productive adult but I would argue that that does not fit the ROI model. I guess, if it was a for-profit college then you might have a point. But again, all of these could arguably fit into a fairly universal definition of the proper role of government. However, they do have one characteristic that separates them from much of the remainder of government spending...other than maintenance, they are a singular expense.

Ok, so you have a problem with me using the words "investment in our future" to refer to repairing or building our infrastructure. You have a pathetically lame argument for that opinion, but whatever.... Is there a point?

Oh, well...that certainly clears it up for me. Krauthammer's analysis is wrong because Jane said so. Got it.

READ my post, J.Q.! I showed the flaw in the author's logic. I am getting tired of having to spoon feed you. As I said,

"He [the author] basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis."

Then I explained why he is wrong. You have to actually read the post to get it. I said,

"...Obama's central message has been that the spending and tax cuts are not enough. We have to stabilize and reform our financial system.[/quote]

He said in his address to Congress:

"It’s a plan [American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan] that represents not just new policy, but a whole new approach to meeting our most urgent challenges. For if we hope to end this crisis, we must end the culture of anything goes that helped create it – and this change must begin in Washington. It is time to trade old habits for a new spirit of responsibility. It is time to finally change the ways of Washington so that we can set a new and better course for America.

There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short-term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes, and confidence in our economy. It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy – where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit.
. . .

Now, this recovery plan alone will not solve all the problems that led us into this crisis. We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on. That means using our full ****nal of tools to get credit flowing again to families and business, while restoring confidence in our markets. It means launching a sweeping effort to address the foreclosure crisis so that we can keep responsible families in their homes. It means preventing the catastrophic failure of financial institutions whose collapse could endanger the entire economy, but only with maximum protections for taxpayers and a clear understanding that government support for any company is an extraordinary action that must come with significant restrictions on the firms that receive support. And it means reforming a weak and outdated regulatory system so that we can better withstand financial shocks and better protect consumers, investors, and businesses from the reckless greed and risk-taking that must never endanger our prosperity again.

No longer can we allow Wall Street wrongdoers to slip through regulatory cracks. No longer can we allow special interests to put their thumbs on the economic scales. No longer can we allow the unscrupulous lending and borrowing that leads only to destructive cycles of bubble and bust."
-- Barack Obama"


I have repeated my plan here ad nauseum. However, I will elaborate even further.

I've heard your plan and yes, I'm nauseous, but I was responding to your attack on Obama's statement that only the government can provide the short term boost we need.

Then you proceed lay our your plan which includes actions that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE!

J.Q.'s plan:
Immediate tax cuts (did that)
give employers and employees a 50% reduction in FICA and put that money directly into SS, (this is stimulus?)
repeal M2M,
reinstate the uptick rule (I agree)
wait for a little while to see how the economy and the market responds.

Obama's tax cut take effect in April. It is the largest tax cut for the middle class in history. They are looking at the uptick rule -- I haven't heard the latest on that. Repealing M2M just creates the problem of figuring out how to value assets. There has to be confidence that the formula you use is based in reality. Maybe you have that formula. Let's say you do. Suddenly all the companies in trouble produce financial statements that look a lot better. That doesn't mean companies are going to start hiring people and funding new projects and expansions. That doesn't mean people are going to go out and start investing in the stock market, driving the prices up. We have to get people back to work!

If AIG fails, tons of banks worldwide fail, tons more businesses fail, unemployment continues to rise. You just don't get it.[/quote]

[J.Q. Citizen]

Ok, so you have a problem with me using the words "investment in our future" to refer to repairing or building our infrastructure. You have a pathetically lame argument for that opinion, but whatever.... Is there a point?

Yes. My point is that when government is simply doing the job it is supposed to do while simultaneously spending more money in a single bill than in the history of all bills to do things it shouldn't, then labeling it as an "investment" is simply a pretty face put on it to make it attractive to the average uninformed citizen.

READ my post, J.Q.! I showed the flaw in the author's logic. I am getting tired of having to spoon feed you.

Well gee Ma, I'll try to better...I promise I will.

I guess I just got confused. See, when all of this first started, when you first posted a response to the Krauthammer article, I said I was going to make it quick because I had to eat. Anyway, I skimmed over your response planning to revisit your post later but decided to make a few quick points since I was in the neighborhood. So, there I am skimming, hmmm...let's see....
"Bill is right", yada yada yada, "Krauthammer is dead wrong", yada yada yada, "Krauthammer said this", yada yada yada, "Krauthammer is dead wrong".
Jane asks about spending, Jane is asking again if all we want it tax cuts, Jane asks yet again if we favor just doing nothing.
Sigh, asked and answered your honor, getting hungry...guess we're done with Krauthammer, I wonder what's next?
Yada yada yada, Jane likes the pretty face of calling a huge spending bill an "investment.
I think I'll comment on that but I wonder why she never clarified why Krauthammer was wrong?
Yada yada yada, Obama says something about spending and tax cuts not being enough.
Hmmm, not sure what that's about but it's followed by what looks like an entire excerpt from the SOTU speech, looks like it may be the part about how capitalism has caused all of our problems and the government is the only power on the face of the earth that can save us so I'll have to come back to that later even though I saw all those "only government" snippets in bold...I don't know, I may have to comment on that.

So, I toss out some points including my second point where I asked exactly what you thought was wrong with Krauthammer's analysis.

You respond to my points and when you get to my question about Krauthammer's analysis you say I did point out what was wrong with the article. "He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that."

So, I look back. Yes, that is what you say, then you move on to something else...questions I think...asking again if we should spend or not. Advocating "investment. I was only focusing on that most recent post so I responded to that single "he's dead wrong" statement of yours. Little did I know, until I actually had time to go back and read it that, apparently, after a brief tangent you had resumed your assessment. So, I apologize, I guess I'm just not sharp enough to keep up with your tangential mind...or I shouldn't wait until 2:30 to eat my first meal of the day. I'll try to do better.

As I said,

"He [the author] basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis."

Actually, I think the argument was that he has focused on those three issues first when he should have been responding to the root causes of the financial crisis first.

Then I explained why he is wrong. You have to actually read the post to get it. I said,
Actually, if we're going to be accurate, before you explained why he was wrong you interjected with two distinct lines comprised of four sentences/questions that were not directly related as to why he was wrong.

"...Obama's central message has been that the spending and tax cuts are not enough. We have to stabilize and reform our financial system.
The next portion is a repeat of your excerpt so I will exclude that in the interest of brevity.

I've heard your plan and yes, I'm nauseous, but I was responding to your attack on Obama's statement that only the government can provide the short term boost we need.

Ok, you have a point. I focused on your challenge of "Let's hear your plan" rather than the first part of your question which essentially asked, "if not government then who?" What can I say? Since you'd asked me to repeat it several times before I admit...I assumed we were doing it again. However, in my defense, what I thought I had made abundantly clear in previous posts was not that government should have no role but rather a distinct, decisive and limited role. So, when you say
Then you proceed lay our your plan which includes actions that ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE!
you are correct, I did lay out the actions that only government could take. I guess that what I thought was obviously implied throughout my discussions of this is that I reject the notion that only through excessive government spending can it solve the financial crisis but rather, take some limited actions and then get the Hades out of the way.

J.Q.'s plan:
Immediate tax cuts (did that)

Where exactly did we do that in the stimulus. And I'm being serious. I have looked through the plan and could find nothing that indicated that tax rates were going to be reduced. So if you could tell me exactly where that is, I would appreciate it.

give employers and employees a 50% reduction in FICA and put that money directly into SS, (this is stimulus?)

I'm pretty sure it would result in more take home pay than the $13/week that people will see as a result of simply modifying the rate of withholding.

repeal M2M,
reinstate the uptick rule (I agree)
wait for a little while to see how the economy and the market responds.

Obama's tax cut take effect in April. It is the largest tax cut for the middle class in history.

February to April...not exactly "immediate but ok. Now I need to know...
from where exactly do you derive that statistic of the largest tax cut for the middle class in history?

They are looking at the uptick rule -- I haven't heard the latest on that. Repealing M2M just creates the problem of figuring out how to value assets. There has to be confidence that the formula you use is based in reality. Maybe you have that formula. Let's say you do. Suddenly all the companies in trouble produce financial statements that look a lot better. That doesn't mean companies are going to start hiring people and funding new projects and expansions. That doesn't mean people are going to go out and start investing in the stock market, driving the prices up. We have to get people back to work!

You do not believe that any economic or financial benefit would be derived from companies having more realistic balance sheets? Why would this not be an immediate boost to their assets?

If AIG fails, tons of banks worldwide fail, tons more businesses fail, unemployment continues to rise. You just don't get it.
Yes, I do get it. First, I believe you are overstating the case. I have not heard the case made that if AIG fails that there will be a domino effect. Why did they just lose $60 billion? Because they have no assets with which to pay off on all of the toxic instruments they've covered. But, even if it did fail and have a domino effect, it is something that has to be tolerated. The markets have to have time to correct themselves. All this injection of taxpayer money is accomplishing is delaying the inevitable and the end result will be that the situation is not only prolonged but made almost exponentially worse in the long run. It is the interference of governments that are exacerbating the problem. Capitalism is not perfect. But it is also not the evil that some try to make it out to be. It's not perfect...but it is, by far, the best economic concept that exists.

I will follow up with why I believe Krauthammers analysis to be correct later this weekend.

[J.Q. Citizen]

Well, first things first I guess.

Jane, in your response to this article from Charles Krauthammer, which was based on Obama's address to Congress, you referred to several quotes which you said came from that address. In fact, the quotes you reference came from a January 8, 2009 speech delivered by Obama, I believe at George Mason University.

The actual transcript of the address to Congress can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/24/raw-data-excerpts-obamas-prepared-remarks-congress/

The quotes you reference can be found here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/economy/

I'm going to assume that if you go back and read the actual transcript of the address, you will realize that the premise behind Krauthammer's analysis was exactly right. Specifically, the speech begins with an introduction which is followed by a preamble which is followed by the premise of his speech. The premise is exactly how Krauthammer described it.

So, rather than go through his article and explain why I believe his analysis is correct as I said I was going to do, I figured I would make this observation and give you the opportunity to make your refutations based on the context of the actual address to Congress.

Also, I have a few specific comments to some of what you said.

Bill is right. It's a trick question. We didn't vote for what the author describes because what he describes is not reality. It may be his perception, but it is dead wrong.

He basically claims Obama is only paying attention to his pet interests of alternative energy, education and health care and is oblivious to the financial crisis. He's dead wrong about that.

First, I don't think it's fair to say that Krauthammer is accusing Obama of being oblivious to the financial crisis but rather that he is not focusing on what he, himself, has actually acknowledged is the root causes of the crisis. In other words, he is saying, "We have a house that is on fire and that house is also sitting on a faulty foundation/slab. We are going to concentrate on fixing that foundation...we'll worry about putting the fire out later." Exactly wrong and exactly backwards. Focus on the fire first, then we'll worry about the foundation.

Second, I believe that your characterization that the analysis was "dead wrong, implies that there is absolutely no validity whatsoever in his claims. I am curious as to how you can make that assertion. Are you saying that nothing in what he said resemble reality in any way?

Do you think government spending is needed or not? Are you proposing we only lower taxes and that's it? Or are you proposing we do nothing?

I believe that some minimal government spending is required. Primarily on infrastructure. I don't believe anyone has proposed doing nothing...despite the claims of some people to the contrary.

[J.Q. Citizen]

"...Obama's central message has been that the spending and tax cuts are not enough. We have to stabilize and reform our financial system.

So, any idea yet how and when he intends to do this? Or are we just done with this conversation?