Oh. My God. Obama is Clueless

[Woof]

The fact that he is clueless when it comes to business should come as no surprise to anyone. The guy has never run so much as a bake sale for ACORN....and now his inexperience is so patently obvious that the light bulb is even starting to come on for some libs who were chugging his Kool Aid in Nov. Just the other day, the Campaigner in Chief said one of his goals to help small businesses was to loosen up credit so they could borrow money to make their payrolls!

[Ivytalk]

So if he doesn't begrudge them their bonuses, he's clueless and out of touch, but if he WERE to begrudge them their bonuses, Z and company would be howling about how he's a commie. Wonderful logic there.

I think the real issue here is Obama's 180 for no apparent reason. It just reinforces my belief that he is an empty suit who says what he thinks will appeal to his immediate audience. He illustrates the difference between "politician" and "statesman" about as vividly as anyone I can remember.

Nail, meet head. Well put.

[blueballs]

The fact that he is clueless when it comes to business should come as no surprise to anyone. The guy has never run so much as a bake sale for ACORN....and now his inexperience is so patently obvious that the light bulb is even starting to come on for some libs who were chugging his Kool Aid in Nov. Just the other day, the Campaigner in Chief said one of his goals to help small businesses was to loosen up credit so they could borrow money to make their payrolls!

That would be funny as hell if it wasn't so sad.

[CID1990]

We survived Warren Harding, Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.

We will survive Barackus Obamus.

[travelinman67]

Funny after reading him for a few years, I usually think Krugman is clueless

A couple of weeks back, I read an Op-Ed he wrote in the NYT that left me speechless. Beyond clueless to boldly dishonest and disillusioned. I've never held his views in much regard, and was stunned when I heard he won the Nobel in economics (...again, another "leftie" driven accreditation, worse than Gore's, but not quite as "audacious" as Obama's). I almost posted that Op-Ed on CS, but was short of time...so here it is tonight...

What Didn’t Happen
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: January 17, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/opini ... an.html?hp

Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much — in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy.

I disagree. The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.

About the stimulus: it has surely helped. Without it, unemployment would be much higher than it is. But the administration’s program clearly wasn’t big enough to produce job gains in 2009.

Why was the stimulus underpowered? A number of economists (myself included) called for a stimulus substantially bigger than the one the administration ended up proposing. According to The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, however, in December 2008 Mr. Obama’s top economic and political advisers concluded that a bigger stimulus was neither economically necessary nor politically feasible.

Their political judgment may or may not have been correct; their economic judgment obviously wasn’t. Whatever led to this misjudgment, however, it wasn’t failure to focus on the issue: in late 2008 and early 2009 the Obama team was focused on little else. The administration wasn’t distracted; it was just wrong.

The same can be said about policy toward the banks. Some economists defend the administration’s decision not to take a harder line on banks, arguing that the banks are earning their way back to financial health. But the light-touch approach to the financial industry further entrenched the power of the very institutions that caused the crisis, even as it failed to revive lending: bailed-out banks have been reducing, not increasing, their loan balances. And it has had disastrous political consequences: the administration has placed itself on the wrong side of popular rage over bailouts and bonuses.

Finally, about that narrative: It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.

Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.

But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.

[ ]

So where do complaints of an excessively broad agenda fit into all this? Could the administration have made a midcourse correction on economic policy if it hadn’t been fighting battles on health care? Probably not. One key argument of those pushing for a bigger stimulus plan was that there would be no second chance: if unemployment remained high, they warned, people would conclude that stimulus doesn’t work rather than that we needed a bigger dose. And so it has proved.

It’s important to remember, also, how important health care reform is to the Democratic base. Some activists have been left disillusioned by the compromises made to get legislation through the Senate — but they would have been even more disillusioned if Democrats had simply punted on the issue.

And politics should be about more than winning elections. Even if health care reform loses Democrats’ votes (which is questionable), it’s the right thing to do.

So what comes next?

At this point Mr. Obama probably can’t do much about job creation. He can, however, push hard on financial reform, and seek to put himself back on the right side of public anger by portraying Republicans as the enemies of reform — which they are.

And meanwhile, Democrats have to do whatever it takes to enact a health care bill. Passing such a bill won’t be their political salvation — but not passing a bill would surely be their political doom.

Abso-fucking-lutely unbelievable.

I don't think even Axelrod or Podesta could have written anything more audaciously full of shit.

Krugman is King of Know-Nothing Pundit Jagoffs.

[houndawg]

That was one of my biggest fears - that he was a good politician, but clueless to reality.


Still, better than McCain.

Jon, he's not even a good politician. He's a good CANDIDATE. He's a good CAMPAIGNER. And he's a hell of a SPEAKER. But he's NOT a good politician, and he IS clueless to reality. And NONE of those traits make him a better choice than McCain. NONE.

He's not wearing diapers and drooling in his porridge, and those traits alone make him a better choice than a dessicated old hide like Johnny Mac with one foot in the grave and the other one on a banana peel.

[houndawg]

[quote="Woof"The fact that he is clueless when it comes to business should come as no surprise to anyone. The guy has never run so much as a bake sale for ACORN....and now his inexperience is so patently obvious that the light bulb is even starting to come on for some libs who were chugging his Kool Aid in Nov. Just the other day, the Campaigner in Chief said one of his goals to help small businesses was to loosen up credit so they could borrow money to make their payrolls! [/quote]

Why would anyone expect Obama not to be clueless about bidniz when all of Wall Street is so clueless that they would right now be on the rubbish-heap of history next to the Soviet Union if the taxpayers hadn't been forced into saving their incompetent asses?

The so-called free market outlasted Soviet collectivism by a mere twenty years.

[blueballs]

Why would anyone expect Obama not to be clueless about bidniz when all of Wall Street is so clueless that they would right now be on the rubbish-heap of history next to the Soviet Union if the taxpayers hadn't been forced into saving their incompetent asses?

The so-called free market outlasted Soviet collectivism by a mere twenty years.

Hound, Wall Street was extremely competent at doing what they were ordered to do, earn money in the short term which resulted in higher prices, more capital, and most of all higher bonuses.

The system of mortgage finance was broken from the MBS level all the way to the originator level, which includes the GSA's and the regulators who were asleep at the wheel. We are all to blame.

[houndawg]

Why would anyone expect Obama not to be clueless about bidniz when all of Wall Street is so clueless that they would right now be on the rubbish-heap of history next to the Soviet Union if the taxpayers hadn't been forced into saving their incompetent asses?

The so-called free market outlasted Soviet collectivism by a mere twenty years.

Hound, Wall Street was extremely competent at doing what they were ordered to do, earn money in the short term which resulted in higher prices, more capital, and most of all higher bonuses.

The system of mortgage finance was broken from the MBS level all the way to the originator level, which includes the GSA's and the regulators who were asleep at the wheel. We are all to blame.

I didn't say they weren't masters at getting their snouts in the trough, I'm just saying that such an system isn't any more stable (OK, twenty years more stable) than the one the Soviets had. I think it is kind of interesting that both systems lasted about the same amount of time given that the Bolshevik revolution occured what, 20-30 years after JP Morgan bailed out the US government. As an economic system I guess we get a slightly better grade since we hung on a few decades longer than the Soviets.

[AZGrizFan]

Jon, he's not even a good politician. He's a good CANDIDATE. He's a good CAMPAIGNER. And he's a hell of a SPEAKER. But he's NOT a good politician, and he IS clueless to reality. And NONE of those traits make him a better choice than McCain. NONE.

He's not wearing diapers and drooling in his porridge, and those traits alone make him a better choice than a dessicated old hide like Johnny Mac with one foot in the grave and the other one on a banana peel.

Super.

[AZGrizFan]

Hound, Wall Street was extremely competent at doing what they were ordered to do, earn money in the short term which resulted in higher prices, more capital, and most of all higher bonuses.

The system of mortgage finance was broken from the MBS level all the way to the originator level, which includes the GSA's and the regulators who were asleep at the wheel. We are all to blame.

I didn't say they weren't masters at getting their snouts in the trough, I'm just saying that such an system isn't any more stable (OK, twenty years more stable) than the one the Soviets had. I think it is kind of interesting that both systems lasted about the same amount of time given that the Bolshevik revolution occured what, 20-30 years after JP Morgan bailed out the US government. As an economic system I guess we get a slightly better grade since we hung on a few decades longer than the Soviets.

Funny....I thought America started in 1776 and communism in 1917.

[houndawg]

I didn't say they weren't masters at getting their snouts in the trough, I'm just saying that such an system isn't any more stable (OK, twenty years more stable) than the one the Soviets had. I think it is kind of interesting that both systems lasted about the same amount of time given that the Bolshevik revolution occured what, 20-30 years after JP Morgan bailed out the US government. As an economic system I guess we get a slightly better grade since we hung on a few decades longer than the Soviets.

Funny....I thought America started in 1776 and communism in 1917.

I was measuring from after US the government went bust. Restart for the US, new system in Russia, both collapse within twenty years of each other....just an observation.

[houndawg]

He's not wearing diapers and drooling in his porridge, and those traits alone make him a better choice than a dessicated old hide like Johnny Mac with one foot in the grave and the other one on a banana peel.

Super.

Nah, just weak competition.

[AZGrizFan]

Super.

Nah, just weak competition.

Obama has stepped on his dick as many times as Bush EVER did. And he's only 12 months into this thing. We'd be in much better condition had McCain been elected.

[houndawg]

Nah, just weak competition.

Obama has stepped on his dick as many times as Bush EVER did. And he's only 12 months into this thing. We'd be in much better condition had McCain been elected.

Who said anything about Bush?

I disagree, and not because I'm happy with Obama, I'm not; things are just too fubar for anybody to fix, imo, especially somebody as unstable and as actuarialy challenged as McCain. I guess the good news is that the Chinese will probably manage our economy better than we've been able to do once they assume official control.

[kalm]

Hound, Wall Street was extremely competent at doing what they were ordered to do, earn money in the short term which resulted in higher prices, more capital, and most of all higher bonuses.

The system of mortgage finance was broken from the MBS level all the way to the originator level, which includes the GSA's and the regulators who were asleep at the wheel. We are all to blame.

I didn't say they weren't masters at getting their snouts in the trough, I'm just saying that such an system isn't any more stable (OK, twenty years more stable) than the one the Soviets had. I think it is kind of interesting that both systems lasted about the same amount of time given that the Bolshevik revolution occured what, 20-30 years after JP Morgan bailed out the US government. As an economic system I guess we get a slightly better grade since we hung on a few decades longer than the Soviets.

And just think, the Russians have moved toward capitalism, and we are now moving toward socialism.

You are both right, there were many factors. But it was Wall Street and greed that took steady growth and turned it into a bubble and made an economic downturn into a crisis. Wall Street is terrible at creating economic stability. And bad government is what gave them the opportunity.

[houndawg]

I didn't say they weren't masters at getting their snouts in the trough, I'm just saying that such an system isn't any more stable (OK, twenty years more stable) than the one the Soviets had. I think it is kind of interesting that both systems lasted about the same amount of time given that the Bolshevik revolution occured what, 20-30 years after JP Morgan bailed out the US government. As an economic system I guess we get a slightly better grade since we hung on a few decades longer than the Soviets.

And just think, the Russians have moved toward capitalism, and we are now moving toward socialism.

You are both right, there were many factors. But it was Wall Street and greed that took steady growth and turned it into a bubble and made an economic downturn into a crisis. Wall Street is terrible at creating economic stability. And bad government is what gave them the opportunity.

True dat, and in both places there is much longing for the good old days.

[SeattleGriz]

Palin is the new hope for the future. Palin/Beck! Drill baby drill!!

Boy that sure died out when gas prices dropped. Amazing how short a memory people have.

[houndawg]

Palin is the new hope for the future. Palin/Beck! Drill baby drill!!

Boy that sure died out when gas prices dropped. Amazing how short a memory people have.

They have thousands of acres they could drill today if they wanted to.