Yesterday was our last chance. . .

[JeffM]

Yadda-yadda-yadda

Typical Gassy partisan claptrap signifying nothing.

Obama was a true political outsider when he moved to Chicago; he was never part of the Chicago political machine but eventually understood the importance of gaining its respect and securing its tacit endorsement.  He ran a very successful voter registration drive called "Project Vote" in the early 90's which put ACORN and other "community organizers" to shame... I've never considered ACORN to be the corrupt/racist group vilified by dogmatic conservatives-- to me they're more like a collection of egotistical yet by and large incompetent activist leaders who enjoy pushing around their army of feckless volunteers... That's why I watched hopefully when this Harvard-educated state senator Obama guy ran for the House against Bobby Rush ten years ago...... he got his butt whipped.... and he had to learn some valuable political lessons.... so I view his pragmatism and egotism with some admiration-- at least he's not a "legacy" like a Daley or a Bush or a LaFortune....

OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/10/09/obama-is-not-a-socialist/

Calling Obama a "socialist" simply isn't logical. He doesn't share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn't want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants "capitalism with a human face." He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.

I detest conservatives throwing around the words "socialism" and "Marxism" when it comes to Obama as much as I get angry when idiot liberals toss around the word "fascist" when describing conservatives. I'm sorry but this is ignorant. It bespeaks a lack of knowledge of what socialism and communism represent as well as an ignorance of simple definitions. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. He will not as president, require businesses to meet targets for production. He will not outlaw profit. He will not put workers in charge of companies (unless it is negotiated between unions and management. It is not unheard of in this country and the practice may become more common in these perilous economic times.).

An Obama presidency will have more regulation, more "oversight," more interference from government agencies, more paperwork for business, less business creation, fewer jobs, fewer opportunities. It will be friendlier to unions, more protectionist, and will require higher taxes from corporations (who then will simply pass the tax bill on to us, their customers). But government won't run the economy. And calling Obama a "socialist" simply ignores all of the above and substitutes irrationalism (or ignorance) for the reality of what an Obama presidency actually represents; a lurch to the left that will be detrimental to the economy, bad for business, but basically allow market forces to continue to dominate our economy.

Obama's friendship with Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks, Khalidi, as well as his working with Richard Daley's Chicago Machine was the result of his overweening ambition and not due to any ideological affinity or strain of corruption in his makeup. He may have taken a scholarly interest in some of the ideas put forth by Ayers and he might have seen working to approve some of Ayers' radical ideas as good politics (Ayers was an ally of Daley in the School wars of the 1990's).

But frankly, Obama is someone who impresses me as having no real ideology save that which can get him elected. His campaign has shown him to pander....

That last quip sounds strangely like the accusations of "pandering" made against Bill Clinton by Dem-rival Paul Tsongas and then systematically co-opted and adopted as a Republican meme throughout the 90s....

Rather than read and listen to all the character assassination hyperbole brought up by the likes of Beck, Hannity, Rush, Palin, etc etc..... here's some additional reason-based criticism of Obama's dealings with the "Chicago machine" that is actually three-dimensional..... go figure....

OBAMA'S COMPLICATED DANCE WITH THE CHICAGO MACHINE
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/08/24/obamas-complicated-dance-with-the-chicago-machine/

While I dislike and disagree with the sentiments from the dude over at rightwingnuthouse.com, at least he writes with some nuance rather than all that "mama Grizzly loves America more than liberals do" nonsense.... my views and opinions are closer to the articles listed below.....

Dec. 8, 1995 - What Makes Obama Run?
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/what-makes-obama-run/Content?oid=889221

June 12, 2008 - Is Obama a Chicago Politician?
Guess it depends on your definition—or redefinition—of the term.
By Ben Joravsky
***FWIW, Ben Joravsky is one of my favs as a critic of Chicago city politics.... his stuff on Chicago TIF districts is priceless....
http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/080612/

As for Chicago in 2008 being a hospitable time for organizers "like the young Barack Obama," the truth is that Daley's pretty well destroyed community organizing in Chicago. Many of the fiercest groups have either disap­peared or been co-opted—they pull their punches because, like the aldermen, they don't want to get on the mayor's bad side. It took activists years to get the smoking ban passed over Daley's opposition, and even then the mayor forced them into water­ing it down. Despite backing from Cardinal George and would-be independent alder­men, activists still can't get an afford­able housing ordinance through the City Council, though they've been trying for more than a decade. There used to be several vigilant budget watchdog groups in Chicago, with the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group leading the pack. Now there are none.

Should Obama go along with all this? Well, look at it from his perspective. He first came to town in the mid-80s, working as a community activist for three years. When he returned in the early 90s, just out of law school, he was bright, young, and incredibly ambitious, and the first thing he learned—the first thing any ambitious young wannabe politician learns around here—is that there's no future in Chicago for anyone who defies Mayor Daley.

The best you can do is discreetly look the other way. You might speak out occasionally against the more blatant examples of corrup­­tion—but only if reporters force you to. Other­wise you pretend not to notice. And it goes without saying that you enthusiastically endorse the mayor's reelection—or his Olympic plans.

For Obama, kissing the mayor's ring is like putting that flag pin on his lapel. It's part of the game he's had to play to get elected. It got him to the U.S. Senate. And if he makes it all the way to the White House, it probably will have been worth it.

So how should Obama play it when the Republicans launch their attack ads link­ing him to Daley's Chicago? He should ditch the script that Conley so thoughtfully offered in Salon. He doesn't need that fan­tasy of civility, consensus, racial harmony, and community empowerment. He can tell it like it is. If anything, Daley taught him to be ruthless, devious, and shrewd.

[Conan71]

Your cited article lost me at the point he claimed President Obama doesn't believe in the government or employees taking over or owning corporations. Have you taken a look at who the major shareholders are in GM and Chrysler lately?  Almost made that piece sound prophetic as I think the archive date is 2008.

[JeffM]

Your cited article lost me at the point he claimed President Obama doesn't believe in the government or employees taking over or owning corporations. Have you taken a look at who the major shareholders are in GM and Chrysler lately?  Almost made that piece sound prophetic as I think the archive date is 2008.

Yawn.

"We are acting as reluctant shareholders because that is the only way for GM to succeed."  -  President Barack Obama

Of course, for Oklahoma Republicans and for those so-called Oklahoma "independents" and "libertarians" who also happen to think Fox News is "fair and balanced".... it's all part of some pinko-commie socialist conspiracy plot, which means Obama must be lying because he's determined to dismantle the free enterprise system........... geez, get a grip.  

7/30/2010 Visiting Obama deserves credit for saving GM, Chrysler
BY TOM WALSH
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
http://www.freep.com/article/20100730/COL06/7300387/Visiting-Obama-deserves-credit-for-saving-GM--Chrysler

OK, I get it.

People don't like bailouts -- of Wall Street or Detroit.

Most people who work hard and behave responsibly resent it when their tax dollars are used to prop up big companies run aground by insanely wealthy executives.

Here's the key analogy, though.

People didn't like the rationing of sugar, butter, meat and gasoline during World War II, either. But citizens supported these anti-free-market intrusions as necessary in a time of national emergency.

They assumed in the 1940s that government would restore economic freedoms when the war ended, which is what happened. And that's pretty much what's happening today in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and federal response.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are stunning results. Obama is right to celebrate them. We all should.

[Gaspar]

That's a riot.  Post more!

[JeffM]

Sure.

Paul Abrams
Posted: November 2, 2009
Pop Quiz: Under Reagan, What Was Peak Unemployment, How Long Before It Began Declining?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/pop-quiz-under-reagan-wha_b_341348.html

Certainly, as good students of history, you recognize that Reagan did not inherit the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Nor did he inherit two wars, nor the collapse of the automobile industry, nor 8 years of budget profligacy, nor the radical right wing championing (and avoiding service in) another war or two or three. The retirement of the baby-boomers was 25 years in the future, not already ongoing and accelerating.

And, of course, you don't need little Johnny Boehner to tell you that tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans, are now already 14% lower than Reagan's 1981 tax cut, nor that 95% of Americans received a tax cut in the Obama stimulus, nor that tax rates will still be 10.5% lower for the wealthiest when Obama allows the George W tax cuts to expire, nor that those cuts were intended to expire for the simple reason that they were projected then to cause to big a hole in the deficit.

But this, of course, begs the question as to what the Reagan tax cuts, such as they were, actually did achieve. At the same point in Reagan's Presidency as we are now at in Obama's, what was unemployment, and how long before it began to decline?

Class, I am shocked, shocked, that no one is raising his right hand. So, I'll tell you. Reagan inherited an unemployment rate of 7.6%, no wars, no major financial crisis, a still robust auto industry, a right wing clamoring for increased defense spending (that helps domestic employment), no retiring baby boomers actually taking down social security funds.

To answer the pop quiz: the unemployment rate under Reagan went from 7.6% to 9.7-9.8% in the summer after his inaugural, and remained at that level for two years, before it began to decline in the summer of 1983. In "Obama-time", that would be the equivalent of the summer of 2011. Moreover, the economy did not begin improving until the Spring, 1983, in "Obama-time" that is Spring, 2011.

There are those (your teacher included) who have difficulty separating the effects of the Reagan tax cuts from pure old Keynesian pump-priming deficit spending that accompanied these Reagan tax cuts. And, lest Republicans whine that Reagan had a Democratic Congress, remind them that Reagan himself never even submitted a balanced budget!

Surprise question for extra credit: what was Reagan's approval rating in January, 1983, two years into his Presidency? Again, no one raising their right hand except Dickie Cheney and OJ? OK, the correct answer: 35%--an approval rating only Dick Cheney and OJ Simpson would cheer.

[Conan71]

I don't know that you can really compare what Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited with the same yardstick.  President Obama came in after a sudden and huge melt down in the financial system which included unprecidented energy prices due to crazy trading practices, and two active war fronts.  

President Reagan came in at a time of consistently rising unemployment, an energy crisis caused by a shortage of oil in 1979, a foreign policy crisis with hostages in Iran, the cold war with a huge adversary, and record high interest rates amongst other issues.

I think we are perhaps being a bit impatient with the Obama Administration's approach to our problems.  Certainly, if unemployment is down, GDP is up, and government spending is on it's way to being reined in by the time the '12 election gets here, he deserves every bit as much credit for that as he's getting in derision right now.

Reagan revisionists can continue to slam him all they like.  The fact remains that the day he left office unemployment was lower, GDP was up, interest rates were lower, inflation was under control, and tax reciepts increased on average by 8.2% per year.  All in all, Americans were in better shape in 1988 than they were in 1980.  Other than the increase in deficit spending, President Reagan's team left America better off at the end of its term.  The numbers are indisputable.

There are similarities, but direct comparisions are impossible looking back 30 years.  The whole dynamics of the workforce have changed: our manufacturing base has changed as we were losing the rust belt overseas and have evolved in to a more tech savy and service-oriented economy.  Lending policies are different, trading in commodities has changed, whole new securities were devised for trading.  We've basically invented many new ways in the last 30 years to make money from pushing paper as one engine of the economy.

[Gaspar]

Posting of lib revision graphs in 3. . .2. . .1

[Cats Cats Cats]

I don't know that you can really compare what Presidents Reagan and Obama inherited with the same yardstick.  President Obama came in after a sudden and huge melt down in the financial system which included unprecidented energy prices due to crazy trading practices, and two active war fronts.  

President Reagan came in at a time of consistently rising unemployment, an energy crisis caused by a shortage of oil in 1979, a foreign policy crisis with hostages in Iran, the cold war with a huge adversary, and record high interest rates amongst other issues.

I think we are perhaps being a bit impatient with the Obama Administration's approach to our problems.  Certainly, if unemployment is down, GDP is up, and government spending is on it's way to being reined in by the time the '12 election gets here, he deserves every bit as much credit for that as he's getting in derision right now.

Reagan revisionists can continue to slam him all they like.  The fact remains that the day he left office unemployment was lower, GDP was up, interest rates were lower, inflation was under control, and tax reciepts increased on average by 8.2% per year.  All in all, Americans were in better shape in 1988 than they were in 1980.  Other than the increase in deficit spending, President Reagan's team left America better off at the end of it's term.  The numbers are indisputable.

There are similarities, but direct comparisions are impossible looking back 30 years.  The whole dynamics of the workforce have changed: our manufacturing base has changed as we were losing the rust belt overseas and have evolved in to a more tech savy and service-oriented economy.  Lending policies are different, trading in commodities has changed, whole new securities were devised for trading.  We've basically invented many new ways in the last 30 years to make money from pushing paper as one engine of the economy.

You are correct..   Obama's first year US revenue was down 16.62% from the previous year.  16.62%!!  Thats a huge chunk of money to go away.  Which tells you just how bad everything got.  Oh, and yes, Reagan did increase GDP but he managed to increase spending even more.

Year      US Revenue   %              Spending      %
1974      263.2      ---      269.4      -----
1975      279.1      6.04%      332.3      23.35%
1976      298.1      6.81%      371.8      11.89%
1977      355.6      19.29%      409.2      10.06%
1978      399.6      12.37%      458.7      12.10%
1979      463.3      15.94%      504      9.88%
1980      517.1      11.61%      590.9      17.24%
1981      599.3      15.90%      678.2      14.77%
1982      617.8      3.09%      745.7      9.95%
1983      600.6      -2.78%      808.4      8.41%
1984      666.4      10.96%      851.8      5.37%
1985      734      10.14%      946.3      11.09%
1986      769.2      4.80%      990.4      4.66%
1987      854.3      11.06%      1004      1.37%
1988      909.2      6.43%      1064.4      6.02%
1989      991.1      9.01%      1143.7      7.45%
2005      2153.6      ---      2472      ----
2006      2406.9      11.76%      2655.1      7.41%
2007      2568      6.69%      2728.7      2.77%
2008      2524      -1.71%      2982.6      9.30%
2009      2104.6      -16.62%      3518.2      17.96%




http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

[nathanm]

Posting of lib revision graphs in 3. . .2. . .1

I don't think there's a reasonable person on the planet who would refuse to give Volcker the credit he deserves in bringing down inflation. And Reagan could have done a lot worse for us economically. He rolled back many of his tax cuts to pay for his ridiculous defense spending.

The economic recovery wasn't nearly what the hagiographers like to claim, but it was indeed there, and not insubstantial.

[Conan71]

I don't think there's a reasonable person on the planet who would refuse to give Volcker the credit he deserves in bringing down inflation. And Reagan could have done a lot worse for us economically. He rolled back many of his tax cuts to pay for his ridiculous defense spending.

The economic recovery wasn't nearly what the hagiographers like to claim, but it was indeed there, and not insubstantial.

Should President Obama be fortunate enough to preside over a significant recovery, I hope you will minimize his efforts with the same glee you have used in minimizing President Reagan's.

[nathanm]

Should President Obama be fortunate enough to preside over a significant recovery, I hope you will minimize his efforts with the same glee you have used in minimizing President Reagan's.

If the graph looks the same, I will happily give him the same credit. The fact of the matter is that Reagan's recovery wasn't particularly robust. Better than what we've gotten so far out of Obama on that count, but the economy wasn't so hot in 1982, either, so I agree that more time is needed to see how well his policies will end up working.

[Conan71]

You are correct..   Obama's first year US revenue was down 16.62% from the previous year.  16.62%!!  Thats a huge chunk of money to go away.  Which tells you just how bad everything got.  Oh, and yes, Reagan did increase GDP but he managed to increase spending even more.

Year      US Revenue   %              Spending      %
1974      263.2      ---      269.4      -----
1975      279.1      6.04%      332.3      23.35%
1976      298.1      6.81%      371.8      11.89%
1977      355.6      19.29%      409.2      10.06%
1978      399.6      12.37%      458.7      12.10%
1979      463.3      15.94%      504      9.88%
1980      517.1      11.61%      590.9      17.24%
1981      599.3      15.90%      678.2      14.77%
1982      617.8      3.09%      745.7      9.95%
1983      600.6      -2.78%      808.4      8.41%
1984      666.4      10.96%      851.8      5.37%
1985      734      10.14%      946.3      11.09%
1986      769.2      4.80%      990.4      4.66%
1987      854.3      11.06%      1004      1.37%
1988      909.2      6.43%      1064.4      6.02%
1989      991.1      9.01%      1143.7      7.45%
2005      2153.6      ---      2472      ----
2006      2406.9      11.76%      2655.1      7.41%
2007      2568      6.69%      2728.7      2.77%
2008      2524      -1.71%      2982.6      9.30%
2009      2104.6      -16.62%      3518.2      17.96%




http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/historicaltables.pdf

People who blast President Reagan's defense spending are forgetting historical perspective of national security at the time.  The Cold War still existed with nuclear holocaust as a very real possibility as we were faced with hostile Soviet leaders until Mikhail Gorbachev.  As well, much of our weaponry and vehicle inventory were aging relics from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam eras.  There was also a growing third world threat from the middle east with Iran, Libya, and Afghanistan leading the way.  I can still remember incidents like KAL 007 and having a very real concern about whether or not an incident like that could be a catalyst for a major war.

Defense spending creates and keeps a lot jobs here in the U.S.  About 5,000,000 alltogether.  Many of those are very good paying engineering and technical jobs, much like those the space program provides.  Certainly one can argue that money could be spent elsewhere in the budget on different initiatives like alternative energy and transportation and have the same effect, I can't say I disagree entirely.  Many defense projects are necessarily kept in the U.S. for security purposes which means it secures jobs for Americans which cannot be outsourced.  The same can't be said for spending on alt energy (windmills and solar being built in China).

http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf

Reagan's economic philosophies weren't perfect and did not all work as designed.  It's what happens when theory meets reality and is mixed up with politics.  However, he did preside over the longest period of peacetime growth in U.S. history up to that point. That's something even the most jaded economists have agreed upon.

[Gaspar]

If the graph looks the same, I will happily give him the same credit. The fact of the matter is that Reagan's recovery wasn't particularly robust. Better than what we've gotten so far out of Obama on that count, but the economy wasn't so hot in 1982, either, so I agree that more time is needed to see how well his policies will end up working.

My confusion is that Regan's policies were bold and easy to identify as stimulus.  They immediately returned massive amounts of capital to those who earned it.  They loosened regulation and made an immediate impact.

President Obama's efforts seem to belong to the opposite path.  New layers of government, additional regulations, and the promise of delivering more money to Washington.  The only similarity is an increased debt.  However the increase in debt under Obama dwarfs anything Regan could have ever dreamed of.

So, my point is that no one can provide a nice concise list of the bold actions that President Obama has taken to stimulate the economy.  Only a shopping list of new programs, public projects, and a hundred or so new bureaucracies.

[Conan71]

My confusion is that Regan's policies were bold and easy to identify as stimulus.  They immediately returned massive amounts of capital to those who earned it.  They loosened regulation and made an immediate impact.

President Obama's efforts seem to belong to the opposite path.  New layers of government, additional regulations, and the promise of delivering more money to Washington.  The only similarity is an increased debt.  However the increase in debt under Obama dwarfs anything Regan could have ever dreamed of.

So, my point is that no one can provide a nice concise list of the bold actions that President Obama has taken to stimulate the economy.  Only a shopping list of new programs, public projects, and a hundred or so new bureaucracies.

And that probably is my best answer as to why President Reagan's policies get so much grief.  If you can't find anything to point to your own success, simply tear down someone else to make yourself look better.  That or point out the mistakes of someone else as justification for making even bigger mistakes yourself.

[Gaspar]

And that probably is my best answer as to why President Reagan's policies get so much grief.  If you can't find anything to point to your own success, simply tear down someone else to make yourself look better.  That or point out the mistakes of someone else as justification for making even bigger mistakes yourself.

Exactly.  I think that perhaps much of the uncertainty that is paralyzing the economy now could have been avoided if The President had simply chose to lead, rather than use the crisis as an excuse to pass a bag of hammers and score points with his counterparts.