Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Nov. 4, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.
The fact that opinion polls show Americans are unhappy with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy amazes me. Any high school graduate should know from social studies classes that Congress holds the purse strings on all economic matters facing this country.
Fact is that nearly every economic proposal the president has put forward has been met with opposition and filibusters from Republicans in Congress who are determined to see him fail despite the damage they are doing to Americans.
The blame for our economic woes is not President Obama’s but that of American voters who literally tore the promise of progress from his agenda when they handed the ruling body (Congress) over to Republicans who take their orders from corporate America. Thanks to voters, there will be no jobs bill or any bill passed in any way, shape or form that would violate the Republican pledge to Grover Norquist (of Americans for Tax Reform). Amazing, isn’t it, that the pledge to not raise taxes takes precedence over the Pledge of Allegiance? It looks like the ideology of Mr. Norquist overrides that of President Ronald Reagan who raised taxes several times during his presidency.
Do your homework, America. Before you vote in 2012, take a good, hard look at where Republican policies have taken us over the past decade. The power is in your hands. Use it wisely.
The Obama Jobs Bill is merely a downpayment to his base for 2012 election support. It has little to do with job-creatin.
I understand the letter writer's point and she makes it well. But I disagree. The Founding Father's crafted the Constitution on the premise that no one person/governing body knows what is right and best for the country all the time. The Constitution puts into place a system of 'checks and balances" on the powers and control of all those in elected/appointed office. It is meant to work in that manner for the good of all always, not just one branch or the other.
I welcome a divided Congress, President and Judiciary. It is exactly what the Constitution designs and orders.
Carmine A. DiFazio
I agree with 'part' of Diane's letter. The R's refusal to consider tax increases is 'ill-advised'. Many fear if government is given more money by raising taxes, it will not be used for debt reduction but foolishly spent instead... and I fear that is true. That said, with a 15 trillion dollar debt and an economy in recession, tax increases on 'everyone' must be part of the solution.
After that, Diane's letter runs off the tracks. Congress should take a good deal of the blame because it does hold the purse strings and it is getting nothing done. But Obama and the D's had control of Congress for almost two years. They bailed out GM and the banks and they deserve credit for doing it. The bailouts to the banks were handled poorly, which allowed the banks to get the money with very few strings attached and that failure falls squarely on Obama and both parties in Congress.
Then the health care bill, which should have only been passed and approved by Obama IF it contained real cost savings was passed and signed by Obama when both he and Congress KNEW it had no cost savings and instead just expanded benefits that were not paid for.
Then the stimulus. I am not one who will say it did not create any jobs or one like Nancy Pelosi who claims if it were not passed we'd be at 15 % unemployment. Both are wild speculation and probably wrong. Jobs were created or saved but most were in the 'public' sector, few 'shovel ready' jobs were created and unemployment rose to over 9 % instead of did not go obove 8 % as Obama promised. some of the money was also wasted on projects and companies that were provided ill advised loans and then went bankrupt.
In 2010, voters decided they did not like what they saw of 'change' and went back to a 'divided' Congress.
Oh no, Diane, there is plenty of blame to go around and some of it belongs yo R's in Congress. Some of it also belongs to President Obama and D's in Congress. Obama deseves credit for forming the debt commission and criticism for ignoring its recommendations. In Congress R's won't raise taxes on everyone, and for that they should all be voted out. D's in Congress only want to tax the rich, won't deal with Medicare and SS and want to put any cuts in government spending so far out into the future that the cuts will never happen, and for that they should all be thrown out.
I don't know what will happen in 2012, but I do know that President Obama, the D's in Congress and the R's in Congress have little to point to as successes, that we still sit in recession, that millions are still out of a job, that the real estate market is still a mess, that our medical system is still a mess and just keeps getting more expensive, that Medicare and SS are still heading toward insolvency, that we have no coherent energy or immigration policy, that military and foreign aid spending have not been addressed, etc. That record will be tough to run on for President Obama, the D's and the R's.
Michael
Diane,
Nice try. The dems do not know how to balance the federal budget or create an environment for private sector job growth. They create plans to create jobs in the public sector at the expense of the American tax payer and the private sector. The President's Jobs Plan for example is seen as a political maneuver designed to gin up his base support at the tax payer's expense and does nothing to stimulate private sector job growth and the overall economy. It's a temporary plan with only one-year of both tax cuts & additional spending which gets him through next November's election and fails to give American consumers & businesses any long-term certainty beyond 2012. Even some Democrats have objected to Obama's "Jobs Act". Like his 2009 stimulus, the spending is targeted towards the public sector which is 1/3 of our economy and ignores job growth in the private sector which is the other 2/3 of our economy. Obama's Jobs Plan picks winners (public sector jobs) and losers(private sector jobs) when his plan should be to stimulate job growth in BOTH. He picked the same winners and losers in his 2009 stimulus.
The Republicans have proposed plans that remove consumer and business uncertainty by reducing debt and reforming the tax code which was also recommended by a group of more than 60 leading economists, budget experts, former Treasury secretaries and former lawmakers(see article below). A plan to further reduce debt and to re-write the tax code establishes a stable tax & spend policy so that individuals AND businesses will know their long-term tax burden and, more importantly, know what they can afford to spend short and long term versus just holding onto their money.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/12/news/eco...
Truman's Motto: "The buck stops here."
Obama's Motto: "Buck? What buck?"
Obama's adminstration is full of incompetence or corruption.
It is time for new management.
Obama and Democrats had full control of Congress in his 1st year.
They passed the "Stimulus".
Obama's WH stated that the "Stimulus" would bring unemployment down below 7% by now.
Were they lying or incompetent?
Oh....I forgot....I am speaking to the koolaid crowd....Obama's motto: "Buck? What buck?"
So, Diane, the Dumbocrat's did wonderful things to revive the economy the 2 years they controlled the Presidency, Senate & House, did they not? Of course not. They dithered and diddled and solved nothing, but they did go on a spending spree that produced little other then enoromous damage to our economy and our credit rating. They rammed through a new way for bureaucratic drones to control our lives at a cost far greater than just money. It will stifle business and cinch the yoke around our necks just a bit tighter. You like the nanny-state, Diane? I do not. You happy with letting others make your decisions for you, Diane? I am not. You okay with having your freedoms chipped away, bit by bit? Not I. Time for a change and, thankfully, 2012 will provide that.
What exactly were Obama's credentials for the position he currently fills to our national detriment?
RingofFire - "The dems do not know how to balance the federal budget or create an environment for private sector job growth. They create plans to create jobs in the public sector at the expense of the American tax payer and the private sector."
Really? Who created that surplus Bush pissed away?
This is much more hyperbole than fact. Doing your actual homework would show that Obama's first 2 years were done with control over the government through his party. His passed major proposals for the economy and not surprisingly they failed on their own merits.
The idea that Republicans are now blocking recovery is just partisan nonsense. Obama diserves as much blame as, if not more than, Bush II. In fact, it could be said Obama is more like Bush III.
FYI - The Obama administration has passed 3 jobs bills, spending billions of dollars, to date. They've all failed to do much of anything. Another government spending bill is unlikely to help.
Vernos,
The answer is Bill Clinton - the Democrat president who declared "the era of big government is over"
Now Democrat Obama is President George Bush III and may go done as the worst president in US History.
Michael Casler said "The bailouts to the banks were handled poorly, which allowed the banks to get the money with very few strings attached and that failure falls squarely on Obama and both parties in Congress."
Are you talking about TARP in 2008 or was there some other bank bailout? TARP that was crafted by the Republican Secretary of the Treasury and had to be passed immediately, don't worry about reading the legislation, it's fine. Then it was passed over the weekend and only later did anyone realize what the Republican Administration had done. That TARP? Obama wasn't President in 2008.
"Who created that surplus?"
A Republican controlled Congress created the surplus.
VernosB asked "Who created that surplus Bush pissed away?"
A booming economy with higher tax rates than we have now.
Vernos,
Neither party really knows how to make the economy humm, despite what they say.
Former President Clinton was in office during a major technological transition in America and Worldwide and he and the economy benefitted from the dot com bubble, which I was a part of. He did raise taxes during this period and of course, Progressives claim that shows that raising taxes will spur the economy. That, of course is just conjecture since so many other factors were at work.
Former President Bush cut taxes and the economy eventually sputtered, which makes Progressives claim that cutting taxes ruins the economy. That, of course is also just conjecture because it discounts the fact that we had 9/11 and all that surrounded it, and we were heading into another global transition where our economic superiority would be challenged by China and others. The global transition during the Bush era was negative for America, where it was positive during Clinton's era.
Botton line is: Administrations get way to much credit and blame for what a very complex economy does during a certain time. This also clearly illustrates that when either party claims they 'know' what does or doesn't spur the economy, we all should take that claim with a great deal of doubt.
Michael
Taxes, regulations and rules were also reduced under Clinton as were many barriers to trade.
VernosB asked "Who created that surplus Bush pissed away?"
DOt.com boom/bust with Clinton's lax SEC a big enabler.
I don't think anyone "faults" Obama for the economic woes, rather people have figured out he has no clue what to do, has no economic or business sense or experience, no military background and is not a strong leader so he needs to be replaced. What things he has tried have failed, so time for someone else to step in and try new policy. He spends more a year than 10 years of Bush tax cuts! I mean at some point you have to say no, this is not working, time for a new person with better qualifications.
Another solar company on the brink. Can't the government pick a winner for once? I know its only taxpayer dollars.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section...
I voted for Obama and think he is guilty of several things.
1. He chose to hire Tim Geithner and other Goldman Sachs, Wall Street types, instead of liberal Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman. They have given him bad advice from day one and they have been too friendly with the banksters. There is no way those banks should have been allowed to get any bigger, let alone, not broken up.
2. He should have pressured Harry Reid to change the senate rules regarding the filibuster. There were too many progressive bills passed by Nancy Pelosi, which would have corrected many of our problems and put people back to work, that died on the senate floor because of the record number of filibusters put forth by the republicans.
This forced Obama to adopt too many conservative ideas in his plans, which led to the 2010 whipping and a stalled recovery. It was conservative and republican pro corporate policies which drove our economy off the cliff.
3. His distancing from the progressives. After his inauguration, he DISMISSED the liberals and progressives voices in his base. He listened to the corporatists and conservatives, believing the phony argument that this is a center right nation.
This country has always been about progress, NOT regress. This is a center left, left country. Instead of health insurance reform, he should have push for expansion of Medicare for all. He should be pushing for lowering the retirement age to 50 or 55, instead of playing with the idea of raising the ages for Medicare and Social Security.
I will vote for him in 2012.
But he needs become the next FDR, instead of the remake of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton.
Brtaylor,
I could be wrong of course, but I feel you are part of a minority in this country, not a majority.
I agree that President Obama has not been as Progressive as many Progressives would have liked. However, I think that if he had been that Progressive, he'd have 'zero' chance for re-election. You'd vote for him, but you would not have enough company to come close to getting him re-elected. Because he has steered a more 'moderate' course than many Progressives would have liked, he does have a decent chance to be re-elected.
I don't understand how you and others on the far left Progressive side and those on the far right Conservative side can live in the same world I live in and still believe that a majority of Americans believe what you believe.
If either view was suuported by a majority, we'd see that reflected on a permanent basis in the Presidency and Congress. What we see instead reflects the reality of America. We have a small percentage of people who favor far left Progressivism and another small percentage that favor far right Conservatism and a large number of moderates, about 1/2 of whom support R's and 1/2 that support D's.
You must be living on another planet with all the other far left people if you can't see that. I also think the far right people also live on another planet.
Michael
"Former President Bush cut taxes and the economy eventually sputtered"
The 1st Bush recession started in the last quarter of Clinton's admin according to the government agency that offical declares recessions.
They did not cut taxes until after the economy was in recession.
The economy recovered after the tax cuts were passed and after the economic effects of the 9/11 event wore off.
You need get your facts straight first and make intelligent opinion statements based on facts.
Thanks Diannee for an instruction. Present day thinking is going to melt when voting fever gets his blooming way.
We were told supply side economics, better known as "trickle down economics" was the way to go.
We were told that the Gramm Leach Bliley Act for globalization of banking was a good thing.
We were told NAFTA would better our economy and create jobs.
We were told establishing relationships with communist China would benefit us at home.
We were told invading other countries and building their nations to accept democracy would help us at home.
We were told to achieve the American Dream and be successful we needed to be in heavy debt.
Over the last 30 years it seems all the things we were told hasn't worked out very well for working class people, has it?
Michael
I don't think my ideas for this country are that extreme.
When you break them down, polling has found most people agree with me.
Give me some examples of the policies that I have suggested are radical.
Thanks
Bobby
Peter,
Some people do fault Obama for the mess we are in, which is unfair. But many others do just think he doesn't have the right solutions to the problems, regardless of who created them. That is a problem for all of us and it will be a problem for his re-election chances.
Michael
Vernos,
Maybe your OLV heroes, all 150 hardcore members, will save the day for you and the liberal dems.
Still waiting for them to attain that 99% occupation goal.
Maybe more riots, defecating on cop cars, camp squaller and general lawlessness will win us Vegans over........or not.
Vernos
I saved what you said about the LIES we have been fed over the past thirty years.
Great Post.
Obama controlled the presidency, the House, and the Senate from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011. Congress passed everything he requested in order to revive the economy and, he said, would create jobs: Obamacare, more stimulus, new regulations, serial $1 trillion--plus deficits, almost $5 trillion in new aggregate debt, and extended unemployment insurance and food stamps. Nothing seemed to help.
Voters apparently thought that the class-warfare talk, the hyper-Keynesian borrowing, and the Obama agenda had made things worse rather than better, with near-zero economic growth and 9 percent--plus unemployment so they voted in the Republicans in November, 2010. If the Republican House is to be blamed for nine months of resistance, what could one say of Obama's 24 months of activism? Clearly, Obama's liberal activism hasn't moved the economic dial from recession to growth and he will have to answer for that in 2012.
Brtaylor,
I don't like Geithner and think he should be gone, but Paul Krugman? He thinks we can deficit spent our way out of this mess. We need higher taxes on everyone and large cuts in government spending.
Nancy Pelosi pushed through a health care reform bill that she knew would not reduce costs but would move us closer to a system that exists in Great Britain or Canada. I don't fault people who favor that, considering our system doesn't work that well, but at least tell the truth and don't pass bad legislation just to pass something. If you support Pelosi, or most of the other numnuts in both parties in Congress, you are not where I am.
It was much more than conservative and republican pro corporate policies which drove our economy off the cliff. D's participated, the world economy went global while we snoozed, 9/11, etc all contributed. Neither all Progressive or all Conservative policies led us to this point and neither, alone, will lead us out.
Medicare for all? We can't pay for Medicare for some. This program is already on track to either go broke or break the back of the taxpayer.
I know you think your positions are mainstream, but you, like the very Conservative people, are simply wrong.
Michael
Among Mr. Clinton's accomplishments was Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which "modernized" our financial system by removing regulations. And we all will live for the next 20 years or so with the consequences of creating the very holes that everybody ran through to make money by doing the things that put our economy into free fall and which almost destroyed us.
Actually Rocky is close to being right. The Clinton "surpluses" may have been Budget Surpluses, but total federal debt appears to have grown each year. We can have Budget Surpluses while Debt increases because of the funny accounting we use in Budget calculations. (Which also means that whatever the Newt-led Republicans claim to have done, they did not reduce the growth in the size of the federal Debt.) The problem has been caused by Rs and Ds and it won't be fixed by either Rs or Ds.
Here is a link to a Politifact story that among other things helps clarify the picture about jobs bills that have been proposed: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...
It deserves a careful read to get the full meaning.
Let's see: George Washington got a raw deal because he could never blame his problems on the guy before him.
Obama does not know anything about anything. He wants the rich to 'pay their fair share', what does that mean?? Really? The top 1% pays 37% of the Fed Income Taxes, the top 50% pays 97% of the total income taxes, the bottom 47% PAY NO INCOME TAXES and actually GET money from the govt. The top 5% of the population makes 95% of the things that makes our lives easier and better and more productive, employees 95% of the workers, pays a great deal of ALL taxes:income, social security (as employer half, right libs), unemployment insurance, worker comp insurance, PROPERTY TAXES (paying for roads and schools that the libs think 'we' pay for)and so forth. And after all of this they still haven't paid their 'fair share' to take care of everyone too lazy to get a job? And for those of you who claim that protesters aren't lazy look at the video out on the ODC crowd that wouldn't fill out employment apps because getting a job would just make them wages slaves and they were smarter/better than that. Its time to prune the trees and burn those limbs that do not produce fruit. Work or don't eat.
The Urban Dictionary defines Obama Derangement Syndrome as, "The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the statements -- nay -- the very existence of Barack Obama." From my point of view, I totally agree.
President Obama took full responsibility for unemployment when he made this statement not even two months into his term: "So I guess the answer to the question is, not all of these jobs are going to come back. And it probably wouldn't be good for our economy for a bunch of these jobs to come back ..." ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_offi... )
By saying that he implied that he will create replacement jobs. He has failed to do so.
And therein lies the fundamental problem with our economy, our jobs have gone overseas. Our leaders *must* determine why this has happened and correct the situation so it stops, and yes, reverses. We simply are not going to create an equal number of replacement jobs in new areas.
Bring back our manufacturing base, and all the other problems we face will either solve themselves or be open to reasonable debate again.
The problem started when the govt thought it was the best at creating jobs and managing the economy. The first guy was Sherman with his 'anti-trust' act. The govt has no business in this matter.
From there it was more and more meddling until in 1929 the unemployment rate went from 2 to 9 then back to 6% in about 6 months. When it went from 2 to 9 the govt started to draw up plans to fix things, before it could do anything the rate went down to 6 and then the govt plans were finally ready and passed. Once they took affect the unemployment rate went back down to 2% and the great depression never happened. Thank God for the govt.
---No, that is not the history. Shortly after the govt passed the bills the enemployment rate went to 15%, 17%, 20% and then 25% all in short order!!!!!!!!!!!! The unemployment rate during 1939 after SEVEN years of the NEW DEAL was still 20%!!! (the GD was not over until 1947, three years after FDR died)!! You see FDR did not have an opposition party that made him come up with GOOD ideas, he just kept spending money and with his crack team of dictators (as he called them)he managed the economy actually sending a small NY tailor to jail for charging 2 CENTS less than what the govt said was THE price for dry cleaning suits!!!! FDR sicced the IRS on newspapers that dared question his logic of spend, spend, spend on friends, friends, friends, friends! he also saw that newspapers that wrote favorably about him got govt grants, loans, and contracts with big overruns no problem--wink, wink. He also gave stimulus money to those states and cities that either voted for him or those of his party and made a point to tell those that didn't that if they wanted some graft they had to remember how to vote!!! This sounds like Obama, stimulus is as stimulus does, right Solyandra?. That is what the 'jobs bill' is all about--graft for friends the shaft for the 53%!
Vernos, exactly similar to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. except you claimed normal people got ODS whereas, mainly libs (abnormal) get BDS.
A little over one year ago President Obama said this in a speech in Maryland: "Now, I don't believe that government can or should guarantee the success of this company or any company. I don't think Bob or any business owner expects government to guarantee success. Success has to be earned. It has to be earned the old-fashioned way through great ideas and hard work and great employees. That's the American way." ( http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article... )
Well, Mr. President, it's time to remind your supporters (especially the Occupy movement) that TANSTAAFL still has meaning! Or have you changed your mind since Oct. 29, 2010?
Boftx,
The reasons the jobs left are several:
1) The corporate taxes here are higher than many other nations.
2) With the wages and benefits paid to workers here, if our companies manufacture here, their products have to cost more and therefore are not competitive on the world market.
3) Americans want to buy and do buy the least expensive product or service they can find and those are all provided or produced outside America.
Unless all that and more changes, those jobs are not coming back. The R's and the D's won't even acknowledge that all these conditions exist, much less present 'ANY' coherent plan to address them.
Michael
Boftx,
I don't think Obama does believe in 'guaranteeing' success. But he does believe in government 'assisting' certain favored industries and companies to be successful and therein lies the problem.
Michael
wtplv/boftx- Don't forget the higher costs of sub-assembly components which are uncontrollable costs to a US manufacturer due to mainly higher labor/transportation/raw material costs.
I agree that Obama is deranged.
Well considering that Obama inherited a economy losing 700000 jobs a month with the financial crisis along with a devastated housing market and let us not forget two wars with Ben ladin on the the lose. If I was a conservative I would be to embarrassed to call Obama and Democrats failures.
Well considering that Bush inherited a economy that was in recession and that Clinton deregulated the mortgage and financial systems and that there was a big terrorist army that was built up in the Middle East and that terrorists were running around take flight lessons in the USA.......If I was a kool-aid lib then I would be to embarrassed to call Bush a failure.
Rocky
Your claim that bush inherited a worse economy then he handed to Obama. How is that possible? What celestial object are you orbiting?
Thanks for acknowledging you live somewhere else then reality. What do you dispute about my post about the bush handing off the worst economy in 75 years to Obama? Of course you are going to blame that mess on bill Clinton or how about Barney Frank or Chris Dodd. But then again you will deny that the Graham, Leach, blily act had anything to do with it or the Republican Congress along with bush secretary of treasury, comptroller of currency or thrift and Alan Greenspan get a free pass from you. Why because you have been conditioned by fox news and right wing media. By the way do you post under seargant rock?
Diane.....Great letter.
President Obama was handed the WORST ECONOMY
THAT WAS STILL IN A FREE-FALL, from the greedy,
incompetent republican party.
No amount of republican lies and spin will ever
change the truth and fact.
Greedy, heartless republicans have never been this
desperate, that's why they keep blocking
President Obama's jobs bill.
This will backfire on greedy republicans in 2012.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL BE RE-ELECTED.
THANK GOD.
"Your claim that bush inherited a worse economy then he handed to Obama."
I made no such claim. I am just pointing out if one is going to play the blame-the-previous admin game then one should be consistant in that blame game.
It is true that much of what happens in a current adminstration is really fruit from what happened in previous admin's.
But it is also true that the current admin can't just sit there and point fingers at the previous admin.
It just doesn't work that way in the public.
That is not leadership.
Truman said, "The buck stops here."
Obama says, "Buck? What buck? Is there a buck? It is not my buck."
You do know that Clinton signed the Graham, Leach, blily act ....you do right????????
srock......
President Obama is now rightly pointing fingers
at the republicans who keep voting down the jobs
bill.
That's where the buck stops.
The greedy republicans in Congress.
We'll fix that in 2012.
VOTE OUT ALL GREEDY, OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS
IN CONGRESS.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
The other problem is the fact that greedy CEOs
are STILL SENDING AMERICAN JOBS TO COMMUNIST
CHINA AND MEXICO.
WHAT THE HELL?
Not to save taxes but to use low pay, slave
labor and pay no benefits, that's why.
And no, Michael Casler, the cars, washers and
dryers made in Mexico cost Americans the SAME
PRICE AS IF IT WERE MADE HERE.
The company just makes more profit, that's all.
The American worker gets shafted again.
In God We Trust
You should not forget how valuable legwork president is passing internationally. He is not alone really. Financing markets are in the returning point where no-one is left outside. Financial world is interminable and financial year's continuance fades not in their vase.
What we need is a president like Ronald Reagan . Someone who will raise taxes and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants .
Nice try rock the Graham Leach bliley act was introduced by Republicans the act first passed pretty close to partisan lines. Then after the lobbyists had time to bribe the rest of Congress they were able to pass the bill with super majority. Bill Clinton had no choice but to sign that bill as his veto would have been overridden by Congress. And of course you fail to mention that the Republican Congress in 2005 eliminated the rest of the glass steagle act. Or how about Alan Greenspan? The office of comptroller if currency? Officer of thrift? Are you also not aware bank of America's chief lobbyists wrote the bankruptcy bill of 2005? And that this bill was passed a Republican controlled Congress? Overwhelmingly the evidence points to Republicans in the housing and financial crisis that destroyed our economy. But in the soup that you swim in you can never understand that.