So how muh longer until we can say Obama sucks?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because simply throwing more money at the problem will fix it. That isn't what Krugman is saying at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/op...gman.html?_r=2

Right.... Krugman's quote there doesn't address the central reason for his objection. Because what Krugman actually wants is full nationalization of the banks, as happened in Sweden. N.B.:

Brad DeLong says that Swedish-style temporary nationalization is the right answer to a financial crisis; he’s right. I haven’t been clear enough about this, it seems, but it’s where my basic diagnosis leads: the problem is insufficient capital, you want to inject capital, but you don’t want it to be a windfall to existing stockholders — hence, take over and recapitalize the failing firms. By the way, that’s what we did with AIG 10 years days ago.
So that’s the good solution. The Paulson plan, which is some combination of sheer giveaway and mystic faith that a slap in the market’s face will make everything OK, is a bad solution (and probably no solution at all.)

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-and-the-ugly/

Krugman is consistent--he's been saying this since last fall. His objection to the financial bailout is that it's insufficiently different from what Bush did--it consists of half-measures, and falls way short of the kind of nationalization that he feels is needed--and that he thinks will be the ultimate destination anyway.

More critically, here's Krugman's take on the stimulus package, which many seem to confuse with the bailout.

President Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy was “massive,” “giant,” “enormous.” So the American people were told, especially by TV news, during the run-up to the stimulus vote. Watching the news, you might have thought that the only question was whether the plan was too big, too ambitious.

Yet many economists, myself included, actually argued that the plan was too small and too cautious. The latest data confirm those worries — and suggest that the Obama administration’s economic policies are already falling behind the curve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/op...rugman.html?em

So... yeah, I kind of stand by my interpretation of Krugman's stance here. If "the stimulus is too small" really isn't what Krugman means, then why on March 8, did he say "the stimulus is too small"?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Haha. Priceless.

Ha ha indeed? If you feel like actually contributing, let me know. Can't say I'm shocked.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Ha ha indeed? If you feel like actually contributing, let me know. Can't say I'm shocked.

I'd try, but seems to me that your Nobel prize winner was saying:

1. the plan is too small; then
2. throwing more money at the problem is no solution at all; so he arrived to the conclusion that
3. the best idea is to nationalize banks

...? Yes?

If so, I'm having trouble to decide which one of his position is dumber, 1st or last 3rd.

But I don't have a nobel prize so what do I know. Fighting debt problems with more debt and socialism is sure the way to go. Go figure.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I'd try, but seems to me that your Nobel prize winner was saying:

1. the plan is too small; then
2. throwing more money at the problem is no solution at all; so he arrived to the conclusion that
3. the best idea is to nationalize banks

...? Yes?

If so, I'm having trouble to decide which one of his position is dumber, 1st or last 3rd.

But I don't have a nobel prize so what do I know. Fighting debt problems with more debt and socialism is sure the way to go. Go figure.

So... you agree with Obama's more measured approach, then. Good to know.

You can't use Paul Krugman as cover for your naked hatred of Obama without accounting for who Paul Krugman is--which if you'd been paying attention, you'd know was my point all along. The "Obama spends way too much money" critique is totally incompatible with Krugman's critique, which is that Obama is too careful and too conservative.

Look: this isnt' rocket science. And I feel I should explain what may have come across as some "hostility" in my post. Azure posted a quote and an argument. I responded with another quote and another argument. It's called having a civilized discussion, even though we agree on virtually nothing. Azure and I have these a lot; we rarely agree, but--and this is important--we try to understand what the other person is saying and where they're coming from.

You, on the other hand, pretended to know what we were talking about (not to mention pretending to have the first clue who Paul Krugman is) and posted "haha too funny" as though I should be embarrassed by Azure's post, which was in fact respectful, smart, and worthy of a response in kind. Your post actually diminished the entire level of discourse--and ironically, it came right after our discussion about how the anonymity of the internet destroys civility by insulating people from the necessity of understanding other points of view.

So Azure didn't "get" me--and he wasn't playing "gotcha" anyway. He was participating in a discussion.

I have no illusions that this post will "reach" you in any way. But I hope it does--I don't think you should change who you are in an ideological sense. Just introduce yourself to the idea that other points of view are possible and legitimate. I have long since abandoned the fantasy that I am "always right." I make mistakes. I say things that are wrong. I make predictions that don't come true. It's called being human--and recognizing the imperfection of your own point of view can open up the wide world of possibilities in which you can learn from people who disagree with you.

Not everything has to be a fight. Not everything has to be a "gotcha" game. Sometimes we can just have a civilized discussion--disagree with each other, in a civilized way--and learn about other points of view in the process. It's a beautiful thing.

[Azure]

As long as you don't put me in Krugman's camp.

I merely post articles to generate discussion. Like I said about 7 pages ago in the 'economy' thread, I don't always agree with the articles I post.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by peter12

We'll see. Actually, I'm not too partisan

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh pork, pork, pork is what all Democrats are good for.

You're not?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

As long as you don't put me in Krugman's camp.

I merely post articles to generate discussion. Like I said about 7 pages ago in the 'economy' thread, I don't always agree with the articles I post.

Fair enough. And I am perhaps guilty of trying to do that. I do think that Krugman's view is more or less incompatible with what I take yours to be--in that each posits a very different "Obama"--one criticizes Obama for spending too much and the other criticizes him for being too measured, not departing sufficiently from the Bush/Paulson plan and not spending enough.

But I know you're not in Krugman's camp. I guess I more or less am, to the extent that I understand it all. I guess what I should say is that I hope Krugman is wrong about Obama--but I suspect he may be right. Time will tell.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So... you agree with Obama's more measured approach, then. Good to know.

You can't use Paul Krugman as cover for your naked hatred of Obama without accounting for who Paul Krugman is--which if you'd been paying attention, you'd know was my point all along. The "Obama spends way too much money" critique is totally incompatible with Krugman's critique, which is that Obama is too careful and too conservative.

Look: this isnt' rocket science. And I feel I should explain what may have come across as some "hostility" in my post. Azure posted a quote and an argument. I responded with another quote and another argument. It's called having a civilized discussion, even though we agree on virtually nothing. Azure and I have these a lot; we rarely agree, but--and this is important--we try to understand what the other person is saying and where they're coming from.

You, on the other hand, pretended to know what we were talking about (not to mention pretending to have the first clue who Paul Krugman is) and posted "haha too funny" as though I should be embarrassed by Azure's post, which was in fact respectful, smart, and worthy of a response in kind. Your post actually diminished the entire level of discourse--and ironically, it came right after our discussion about how the anonymity of the internet destroys civility by insulating people from the necessity of understanding other points of view.

So Azure didn't "get" me--and he wasn't playing "gotcha" anyway. He was participating in a discussion.

I have no illusions that this post will "reach" you in any way. But I hope it does--I don't think you should change who you are in an ideological sense. Just introduce yourself to the idea that other points of view are possible and legitimate. I have long since abandoned the fantasy that I am "always right." I make mistakes. I say things that are wrong. I make predictions that don't come true. It's called being human--and recognizing the imperfection of your own point of view can open up the wide world of possibilities in which you can learn from people who disagree with you.

Not everything has to be a fight. Not everything has to be a "gotcha" game. Sometimes we can just have a civilized discussion--disagree with each other, in a civilized way--and learn about other points of view in the process. It's a beautiful thing.

Gotta love all this condescending preaching, pretending you know me, trying to educate me how to participate in a civil discussion. Almost makes me to want to see your degree in psychology, when from a couple of my posts you can come up with stuff like "i hate obama while i agree with his more measured approach"

But I will give you one thing, you claimed that Krugman's position is that he thinks the plan is "too small." As vague a statement that is, I assumed (and I think Azure did too) you meant "the pile of dollar bills is not big enough." If that's not what you mean, I was wrong. Krugman's position is, of course, that a lot of money should be spent, but in a different way Obama proposes. For the record, I think both ways are wrong.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

edit--hatchet buried!

[Flame Of Liberty]

OK

pm sent

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

You're not?

Its all Republicans are good for either.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Larf.

Shocking? What was shocking about that interview?


Anyway, I love how this whole argument has been framed. "When can we say he sucks...?", as if people haven't been saying he sucks since before he was even elected.

Labelling him a failure after a two months is pretty silly.

What was wrong with the 60 minute interview? The man giggled like a girl through the thing prompting his interviewer to ask if he was punch drunk. I wanted to smack him upside the head.

I think he was right about the instilling confidence and such, and having gallows humour doesn't bother me....but you don't giggle like a school girl when people are losing their livelihoods.

Nobody said he is a failure. Just wondering when we can truly say he sucks without the PC police linching us. The man has simple bungled his job from day one. And I believe this has been said already....had it been Bush doing all that.....

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

What was wrong with the 60 minute interview? The man giggled like a girl through the thing prompting his interviewer to ask if he was punch drunk. I wanted to smack him upside the head.

I think he was right about the instilling confidence and such, and having gallows humour doesn't bother me....but you don't giggle like a school girl when people are losing their livelihoods.

Nobody said he is a failure. Just wondering when we can truly say he sucks without the PC police linching us. The man has simple bungled his job from day one. And I believe this has been said already....had it been Bush doing all that.....

Say it whenever you want. If you want people to take it seriously, you may want to wait a few more months. It's clear you've had it in for him since day 1--and that's fine. I'm not going to pretend I gave Bush a fair shake either--though admittedly Bush was a far worse president than even I could have predicted.

However, the comparison is a bit silly. Bush did do dumb things in his first 100 days--and he was widely seen as an incompetent failure in his first six months, with the lowest approval ratings of any president in his first summer, and an utter failure to advance any part of his agenda except the so-called "stimulus" which amounted to a 300 dollar check for most middle-class consumers, as blatant a pander as you could imagine.

But none of that matters--for two reasons. Firstly, because it's ancient history--and secondly because it happened before 9/11, which changed the game completely and made Bush a primarily foreign-policy President. Whether he succeeded at that is another debate--my own views on that are probably not a mystery--but the fact is, Bush's success or failure as a president from that moment on depended on foreign policy, which is not what he ran on--and had it been the central issue of the campaign in 2000, he would likely have lost.

[Jedi Ninja]

An interesting Frontline episode is on tonight, though you'll probably need to PVR it.

Ten Trillion and Counting

All of the federal government’s efforts to stem the tide in the financial meltdown that began with the subprime mortgage crisis have added hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt. FRONTLINE reports on how this debt will constrain and challenge the new Obama administration, and on the growing chorus on both sides of the aisle that without fiscal reform, the United States government may face a debt crisis of its own which makes the current financial situation pale in comparison. Through interviews with leading experts and insiders in government finance, the film investigates the causes and potential outcomes of—and possible solutions to—America’s $10 trillion debt.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rol02s214aq477

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

You're not?

Can I vote Republican? I don't even vote Conservative consistently.

So to you, being partisan is the same as having an opinion.

[Thor]

Meh obama has handed to him the worst the US has been in forever, he's got a 2 wars, massive spending on those wars, an economic collapse gift wrapped by deregulation of the Bush administration and we should start saying Obama sucks 2 months into his presidency??

The reason why US politics fails so miserably is the attention span of the average voter, and why few polititians seem to get involved in actions that span anything past 2yrs since they care mostly about their own butts than they do about long term for their country.

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Jedi Ninja

An interesting Frontline episode is on tonight, though you'll probably need to PVR it.

Ten Trillion and Counting



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...rol02s214aq477

That's only $33,000 per American citizen. Piece of cake.

[Phanuthier]

Well, I guess since I was asked to man up, I'll say its too early to tell 2 months in. Obama said that this would be no quick fix, and it will probably take till the end of his campaign to fix this whole mess, and I think (eluding to IFF's post, which I've noticed quite a bit as far as any topic goes) the biggest problem is people want it, and THEY WANT IT NOW.

I'm also thinking along the lines of Dis that sometimes, some of the money spent makes me shake my head and laugh, but you know what? Of the billions and trillions of dollars, not every single penny is going to be spent well. The hope is that in the end, more dollars go towards helping then being lost - so the broad picture for me is that.

For the most part, I agree with what Obama is doing. I think you have to spend and bail out the banks and insurance(but not the auto industry). I would like to see some money given to tech to try and keep the market here, as I believe it is actually the most important market in to keep and its the one thats being lost the fastest, but I realize Calgarians may not be in tune with the tech industry and I'd just be talking to myself.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I think he was right about the instilling confidence and such, and having gallows humour doesn't bother me....but you don't giggle like a school girl when people are losing their livelihoods.

I did raise an eyebrow at the laughing, but I wouldn't call it "giggling like a schoolgirl", and it takes a little more than what went on in that interview to "shock" me.

Really though, what is he supposed to do, start crying? He's not making light of people losing their jobs.

Originally Posted by HOZ

Nobody said he is a failure. Just wondering when we can truly say he sucks without the PC police linching us.

Ahh, the dreaded PC Police Lynch Mob. What a useless law-enforcement agency that is.

"Obama sucks, but I'm not allowed to say he sucks".

You just said it. I doubt you'll be dragged before the PC Judge for saying so.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Say it whenever you want. If you want people to take it seriously, you may want to wait a few more months. It's clear you've had it in for him since day 1--and that's fine. I'm not going to pretend I gave Bush a fair shake either--though admittedly Bush was a far worse president than even I could have predicted.

However, the comparison is a bit silly. Bush did do dumb things in his first 100 days--and he was widely seen as an incompetent failure in his first six months, with the lowest approval ratings of any president in his first summer, and an utter failure to advance any part of his agenda except the so-called "stimulus" which amounted to a 300 dollar check for most middle-class consumers, as blatant a pander as you could imagine.

But none of that matters--for two reasons. Firstly, because it's ancient history--and secondly because it happened before 9/11, which changed the game completely and made Bush a primarily foreign-policy President. Whether he succeeded at that is another debate--my own views on that are probably not a mystery--but the fact is, Bush's success or failure as a president from that moment on depended on foreign policy, which is not what he ran on--and had it been the central issue of the campaign in 2000, he would likely have lost.

There was no comparison of Bush to Obama. Just a statement on an observation. Had it been Bush that did all these things the sheer mass of derogatory posts would melt CP if not other groups.

Here is a comparison. If you add up all the accumulated debt from every president since George Washington until GW. Bush, in 2 months Obama has left them in the dust. That is a comparison. And man do I ever hope he is doing the right thing.