Economic Reality

[Hoss]

This part is the hole:

That's a little heavy handed, don't you think?  Name anyone besides that one Youtube street chick #1 who was expecting anything resembling a free ride.  Did Al Sharpton say anything in that vein? Or Jesse Jackson? How about Jim Clyburn, or Harold Ford or Jesse Jackson Jr.?  Anyone on the Congressional Black Caucus, or in the Rainbow Coalition, or the NAACP, or any other prominent politically active orgs?  Anyone say anything remotely like that besides random street chick #1? How about even Maxine Waters?  She's TOTALLY whacked, and yet she hasn't said anything about free housing and free healthcare and free food and free free free.

If you look at the African American power structure, they have all been cautiously optimistic about Obama's presidency -- hell, his candidacy! -- from day one. There's never been a sense that anything will get easier.  Maybe rightwing radio is saying stuff like this but if you actually listen to African American leaders speak, you'll hear that hesitancy.

Like I said before, the left IS pissed at Obama -- and the NPR article is legit -- because he's left a lot of things on the table and compromised when he didn't have to.  He gave away a lot and got nothing in return, which hasn't endeared him to his base.  On the other hand -- and I say this as a disgruntled Dem -- there's nowhere else to go.  There's no way anyone on the GOP side is going to offer anything close to adult supervision. And honestly, even if a moderate like Huntsman or Romney gets elected, they'll be so beholden to the whackadoos that even if they have moderate impulses, they'll be pushed farther right every time.

So I -- much like the gayfolk, the African Americans, the Hispanics, the environmentalists, the anti-capitalists, the euro-socialists, the anti-torture, anti-security state, anti-surveillance, anti-war, anti-banking, anti plutocratic-order activists -- will vote enthusiastically for someone I'm lukewarm about because to vote the alternative is madness. 

They call that "the lesser of two (or eight) evils"..

[Conan71]

This part is the hole:

That's a little heavy handed, don't you think?  Name anyone besides that one Youtube street chick #1 who was expecting anything resembling a free ride.  Did Al Sharpton say anything in that vein? Or Jesse Jackson? How about Jim Clyburn, or Harold Ford or Jesse Jackson Jr.?  Anyone on the Congressional Black Caucus, or in the Rainbow Coalition, or the NAACP, or any other prominent politically active orgs?  Anyone say anything remotely like that besides random street chick #1? How about even Maxine Waters?  She's TOTALLY whacked, and yet she hasn't said anything about free housing and free healthcare and free food and free free free.

If you look at the African American power structure, they have all been cautiously optimistic about Obama's presidency -- hell, his candidacy! -- from day one. There's never been a sense that anything will get easier.  Maybe rightwing radio is saying stuff like this but if you actually listen to African American leaders speak, you'll hear that hesitancy.

Like I said before, the left IS pissed at Obama -- and the NPR article is legit -- because he's left a lot of things on the table and compromised when he didn't have to.  He gave away a lot and got nothing in return, which hasn't endeared him to his base.  On the other hand -- and I say this as a disgruntled Dem -- there's nowhere else to go.  There's no way anyone on the GOP side is going to offer anything close to adult supervision. And honestly, even if a moderate like Huntsman or Romney gets elected, they'll be so beholden to the whackadoos that even if they have moderate impulses, they'll be pushed farther right every time.

So I -- much like the gayfolk, the African Americans, the Hispanics, the environmentalists, the anti-capitalists, the euro-socialists, the anti-torture, anti-security state, anti-surveillance, anti-war, anti-banking, anti plutocratic-order activists -- will vote enthusiastically for someone I'm lukewarm about because to vote the alternative is madness. 

Exactly! (Apologies to Gaspar)

Of course it's heavy-handed.  I hope you realize I used the dumbass woman to bring a little hyperbole and absurdity into the discussion.  The reason black America was excited at the possibility there finally would be a black major party candidate had so little to do with the color of his skin.  Sure, there was the historical aspect of helping to elect the first black president, but what was the relevance of one of their own finally getting to the most powerful seat in the world?  They pinned a lot of hope on this candidate that blacks would finally get a leg up on new jobs, new business opportunities in their communities, better education, disappearing blight and crime.

Has much, if any of that, come to fruition under the Obama Administration?

I loved the government statistics Recyclemichael posted last week showing that black-owned business enterprises had increased by 60%- from 2002 to 2007!!!!  Genuine proof that Bush hated blacks and Bush era policies were so bad for African Americans.  Just goes to show how little perception has to do with reality in politics.

[Gaspar]

So I -- much like the gayfolk, the African Americans, the Hispanics, the environmentalists, the anti-capitalists, the euro-socialists, the anti-torture, anti-security state, anti-surveillance, anti-war, anti-banking, anti plutocratic-order activists -- will vote enthusiastically for someone I'm lukewarm about because to vote the alternative is madness. 

A focus on social issues over ability to lead is madness. All of the above groups placed higher importance on their marginal social issues than they did on economic issues. 

There is no social justice in a failing economy!  This goes back to my previous analogy about re-arranging deck chairs as the titanic sinks.  Candidate Obama was beholden to these groups and their agendas to get elected.  Once in office he had to face the reality that everything he promised required funding, and therefore a stable economy and tax base for fuel.  The problem was that he was immensely experienced in dealing with social issues but had zero economic experience.  He was incapable of making good on any of these promises because he was incapable of providing economic stability.  His audacity prevented him from seeking any appropriate help in the matter, so he surrounded himself with academics who matched his social philosophy rather than innovators with experience.

As president, there are few issues more important than the economy.  I am happy to vote for a president who doesn't give a smile about who marries who, or what color you are, or whether you like to butter your bread on the top or the bottom.  I'll let my representatives hash out those issues.

If we continue framing our Commander in Chief solely by how he/she reacts to social questions, rather than their ability to lead, we will continue to get more President Obamas. . .leading from behind.

[Cats Cats Cats]

A focus on social issues over ability to lead is madness. All of the above groups placed higher importance on their marginal social issues than they did on economic issues. 

There is no social justice in a failing economy!  This goes back to my previous analogy about re-arranging deck chairs as the titanic sinks.  Candidate Obama was beholden to these groups and their agendas to get elected.  Once in office he had to face the reality that everything he promised required funding, and therefore a stable economy and tax base for fuel.  The problem was that he was immensely experienced in dealing with social issues but had zero economic experience.  He was incapable of making good on any of these promises because he was incapable of providing economic stability.  His audacity prevented him from seeking any appropriate help in the matter, so he surrounded himself with academics who matched his social philosophy rather than innovators with experience.

As president, there are few issues more important than the economy.  I am happy to vote for a president who doesn't give a smile about who marries who, or what color you are, or whether you like to butter your bread on the top or the bottom.  I'll let my representatives hash out those issues.

If we continue framing our Commander in Chief solely by how he/she reacts to social questions, rather than their ability to lead, we will continue to get more President Obamas. . .leading from behind.

You have already established that the problem is a "feeling".  That when Obama cuts their taxes it doesn't count.  So he did what he could and extended the Republican fixes started by Bush.  Threw in some of his own.  It was pretty obvious that the greatest decline in the US since the great depression doesn't turn around in four years.  I think we will be lucky to be out of it in 2016 too.

[nathanm]

Gaspar, need I remind you once again that the massive tax increases have been coming from the states, and not the federal government? I know it doesn't give you ammunition to use against Obama, but you should at least try to keep the facts in mind.

[Gaspar]

Gaspar, need I remind you once again that the massive tax increases have been coming from the states, and not the federal government? I know it doesn't give you ammunition to use against Obama, but you should at least try to keep the facts in mind.

Did I say something about massive tax increases?  Did I even mention tax increases? 
It appears you have a different dialogue going on in your head.

[we vs us]

A focus on social issues over ability to lead is madness. All of the above groups placed higher importance on their marginal social issues than they did on economic issues. 

There is no social justice in a failing economy!  This goes back to my previous analogy about re-arranging deck chairs as the titanic sinks.  Candidate Obama was beholden to these groups and their agendas to get elected.  Once in office he had to face the reality that everything he promised required funding, and therefore a stable economy and tax base for fuel.  The problem was that he was immensely experienced in dealing with social issues but had zero economic experience.  He was incapable of making good on any of these promises because he was incapable of providing economic stability.  His audacity prevented him from seeking any appropriate help in the matter, so he surrounded himself with academics who matched his social philosophy rather than innovators with experience.

As president, there are few issues more important than the economy.  I am happy to vote for a president who doesn't give a smile about who marries who, or what color you are, or whether you like to butter your bread on the top or the bottom.  I'll let my representatives hash out those issues.

If we continue framing our Commander in Chief solely by how he/she reacts to social questions, rather than their ability to lead, we will continue to get more President Obamas. . .leading from behind.

Actually, as Conan points out, each of these groups has very real economic concerns and especially for these groups the are inseparable from the "social justice" issues. 

I don't think I disagree overall with your point, which I THINK is that in this situation, the macro concerns trump the micro -- ie. get the whole thing working again rather than tweaking at the margins -- but the rest of your characterization is bunk.  Obama didn't make up his policy response on his own, in a shed, in the dark, with no other input.  He had a very credentialed, experienced team working with him.  They made policy choices based on their interpretations of solid information.  You keep insisting that the economic problems are somehow results of Obama's character failings, when in fact they were policies which didn't fully work.  That's it.  Obama's neither evil nor stupid nor lazy, nor even a particularly bad executive.  He's been able to advance an agenda in the face of a barking mad opposition party that has nothing but the crazy at it's center (certainly not any actual sets of policy provisions).  But he hasn't failed because he did nothing or acted stupidly.  He chose a course of action that wasn't strong enough and was more geared toward compromise than it should have been.

[Gaspar]

Actually, as Conan points out, each of these groups has very real economic concerns and especially for these groups the are inseparable from the "social justice" issues.  

I don't think I disagree overall with your point, which I THINK is that in this situation, the macro concerns trump the micro -- ie. get the whole thing working again rather than tweaking at the margins -- but the rest of your characterization is bunk.  Obama didn't make up his policy response on his own, in a shed, in the dark, with no other input.  He had a very credentialed, experienced team working with him.  They made policy choices based on their interpretations of solid information.  You keep insisting that the economic problems are somehow results of Obama's character failings, when in fact they were policies which didn't fully work.  That's it.  Obama's neither evil nor stupid nor lazy, nor even a particularly bad executive.  He's been able to advance an agenda in the face of a barking mad opposition party that has nothing but the crazy at it's center (certainly not any actual sets of policy provisions).  But he hasn't failed because he did nothing or acted stupidly.  He chose a course of action that wasn't strong enough and was more geared toward compromise than it should have been.

He surrounded himself with very credentialed academics with minimal private sector experience:
Timothy Geithner
Lawrence Summers
Jared Bernstein
Jason Furman
Christina Romer
Melody Barnes
Peter Orszag
Austan Goolsbee

He embraced Keynesian economic principals that work well in a class room but do not pan out in reality because human beings do not react as simple Keynesian variables.

He appointed "blue ribbon panels," but when they came back with advice that echoed what the private sector was saying he opted to dismiss it rather than adopt it.

His economic policies are rock solid.  Unfortunately, they are dead wrong.

Those who have resigned are beginning to rumble about his choices.  Christina Romer has become the most vocal.  I'm sure part of this is to try and reestablish some sort of credibility among her peers, but it is telling none the less.  The others will tell their tales soon.

[guido911]

I personally like the "Obama Stash" recording:

But o/t, here is a very interesting report that kinda shines a light on why about 95% of blacks voted for Obama.

Did 95% of whites go for McCain?

[we vs us]

He embraced Keynesian economic principals that work well in a class room but do not pan out in reality because human beings do not react as simple Keynesian variables.

Keynesian economics saved our bacon during the Great Depression.  Which reality are YOU talking about?

[guido911]

Keynesian economics saved our bacon during the Great Depression.  Which reality are YOU talking about?

World War II had nothing to do with it?

[we vs us]

World War II had nothing to do with it?

Well, if you want to talk about Keynesian stimulus, that'd be a prime example.  Nothing like using massive government borrowing to stimulate the war industry. 

[guido911]

Well, if you want to talk about Keynesian stimulus, that'd be a prime example.  Nothing like using massive government borrowing to stimulate the war industry.  

Oh THAT'S what you meant about Keynesian stimulus, government spending to defend itself from foreign enemies and not all that early Keynesian stimulus that took place the numerous years preceding it. Quick, someone call Obama and tell him to increase military spending 1,000%. Where is my backpedaling image when I need it?

edited.

[Gaspar]

Keynesian economics saved our bacon during the Great Depression.  Which reality are YOU talking about?

Economics is a social science, not a physical one, in which people and systems are constantly adapting to changing conditions. The policies that may be good for one era may not be right for the next. And it is the truly great economists who spot the changing dynamics, acknowledge the inadequacy of the old prescriptions and are clever enough to come up with something better.

In the 20/30s our workforce was far less entrepreneurial and far more "workforce" related.  Industry in the United States was production driven.  We were a nation of factories and factory workers.  The Keynesian model was a far better fit.

We've changed, and for the better.  We live at the other end of the spectrum.  We have some great expamples of how the two competing philosophies (Keynsian vs. Freedman/Mises) work in the modern world.  Carter's path to stagflation, and Obama's stagsession offer a deep contrast to Kenedy's and Regan's modern approach.

In a world where everyone is invested, and small business employment outnumbers big business, our economy only realizes temporary fluctuation through stimulus spending.  Long term growth is achieved through free trade policies, and free market approaches.

Government is no longer the coach, it is the referee.

 

[Gaspar]

Here's a sad reminder. . .

This is a transcript from yesterday's DNC event.  This is the President's address at the event.

Do a word search for private sector Jobs.  Read the sentence and the reaction of the DNC crowd.