Interesting concept on this administration..

[Guest]

where we think that it is all about STIMULUS and HEALTH CARE he presents a compelling arguement that is none of this or any of the named bills, but more of a way to accomplish that REDISTRIBUTION and for a long time.

"The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making."
Again, it is not about the specific items and it explains why nobody bothers to read any of the bills, why they become available almost instantly in pages well over 1000.....

"Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency."

In 7 months this administration has made it somehow improper to make money or to even try to make money...it will put you under the microscope...

"Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

"Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

This is a rather long but detailed editorial and it is scary.....it ends thusly...

"Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ2NWJkN2M3ZmJjYWQwMDZlMWQyM2FjNWI4ZWJkNGI=#mo re

There are those on here who ask all to read articles that frame their opinion just so we see both sides.....in every case I have done so...I hope those who ask that will read and see both sides and measure it fairly against our administrations background, both the President and many of those advising him.

[Guest]

There seems to be an administration reliance on the American memory capacity is less than 30 days. So, they can do anything now, as long as they stop prior to the beginning of the next campaign cycle.

After all, congressfolk with 2-year terms have been doing it for years, and those in he Senate are the masters of making the most of American forgetfulness.

[Guest]

I'm certainly not going to react as one who embraces all the the new President has done. I don't. I'm particularly in disagreement with the inefficiency of much of the government spending that has occurred. I will not vote for President Obama's re-election. But I feel compelled to provide a different interpretation of some of the statements from the National Review article....
Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?...
"Bi-partisanship" is a two way street. There was little bi-partisanship in the Congress in prior administrations and that continues in the 111th. The President has made an effort to invite his political opposition to meet and hear their concerns and desires. If the Congress in it's entirety continues their partisan behavior under the leadership of the two political parties, I don't think that President Obama should be blamed, any more than President Bush or President Clinton should be assigned total responsibility for the bitter partisanship before him....Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?...Only by the most closed-minded assert that all of big government is dubious.. We've already determined, right here in this forum, that few if any of us would describe government-run programs such as Medicare or the Veteran's Administration as "dubious"....Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession...These words by this author, while possibly effective in inflaming the emotions of those who don't study the facts, are totally untrue in the eyes of almost any economist or expert in government finance that has opined on the actions taken to correct the economic crisis. While some disagree with all the steps taken, all agree that dramatic actions were necessary by the governments of all the major world economies to reverse the slide of recession into depression. Those that look at the effect of those steps in a fair-minded way must agree that what was done seems to be working....Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness...the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations...I guess it needs to be pointed out...again..that the President has no Constitutional authority to increase spending, authorize debt limits or create new taxes...NONE!...In 7 months this administration has made it somehow improper to make money or to even try to make money...Again, nice sounding words, but how has "this administration" done that? Unless I missed a new law somewhere, not a single tax increase has been enacted since January 20, 2009. Have regulations been enacted to limit excessive compensation by executives of companies who needed massive taxpayer funding to assure their survival? Yes, and appropriately so. All they need do is pay the money back and they can go back to paying themselves as much as they want....Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP....Has there been increased federal spending? Yes, absolutlely. Is it fair to calculate such spending as a percentage of GDP at a time when GDP is at a cyclical low point? Only if you were a statistician or political opinion-writer trying to prove a point with misleading numbers. There are some pretty well-qualified economists that have projected that even the current elevated levels of federal spending will not result in such spending consuming a higher proportion of GDP. In fact, some have projected that with only modest economic growth from where we are now and inflation no better or worse than has been the norm, that government spending as a percentage of GDP will actually decrease in the next ten years. That decrease will be from a level of spending already significantly lower as a percent of GDP than many of the major developed countries in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------
So yes, Bucco, I think we should all consider the opinions of various people of different political, economic and social persuasions. I have and I think you have as well. But I felt compelled to comment on the statements of this particular author.

[Guest]

VK.....I would like to take afew minutes if you dont mind responding to each if I can...

Originally Posted by Bucco
...
Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?...
VK....
"Bi-partisanship" is a two way street. There was little bi-partisanship in the Congress in prior administrations and that continues in the 111th. The President has made an effort to invite his political opposition to meet and hear their concerns and desires. If the Congress in it's entirety continues their partisan behavior under the leadership of the two political parties, I don't think that President Obama should be blamed, any more than President Bush or President Clinton should be assigned total responsibility for the bitter partisanship before him.

Yes Bi partisanship IS a two way street, but can you recall ANY president being elected as the ONE who crowed about no old time politics....not more of the old days....the ONE who is the savior and will make everyone believe.
You can SAY he tried and I only know what I read which has been a lot of words (which pretty much defines this administration)...not much action at all. We are talking SEVEN months and he threw in the towel publicly a few months ago.

Originally Posted by Bucco
...Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?...
VK
Only by the most closed-minded assert that all of big government is dubious.. We've already determined, right here in this forum, that few if any of us would describe government-run programs such as Medicare or the Veteran's Administration as "dubious".

If you dont mind I will simply cut and paste from a thread I began a few days ago...

for federal programs.....this article by David Gergen has a main thrust of warning about the deficit we are growing and China's involvement in that, but this short part of the article...

"People have long memories, and they will recall that when Medicare was passed in the mid-1960s during the LBJ years, the House Ways and Means Committee projected that Medicare would cost about $12 billion in 1990; in 1990, it reportedly cost some $107 billion.

When Washington enacted prescription drug reform in the George W. Bush years, the administration put a price tag on it of $400 billion over nine years; new estimates have projected a cost of $724 billion over nine years. More recently, Massachusetts has embraced a health reform plan that is widely hailed – and serves as a model for the national effort this year – but it, too, has far outstripped original cost estimates."

Keep this in mind as you hear cost estimates !!!

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/2...bama-might-do/

Originally Posted by Bucco
...Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession...
VK
These words by this author, while possibly effective in inflaming the emotions of those who don't study the facts, are totally untrue in the eyes of almost any economist or expert in government finance that has opined on the actions taken to correct the economic crisis. While some disagree with all the steps taken, all agree that dramatic actions were necessary by the governments of all the major world economies to reverse the slide of recession into depression. Those that look at the effect of those steps in a fair-minded way must agree that what was done seems to be working.

oK..this is YOUR arena, but I think TARP took care of the problem and the so called stimulus bill was NOTHING but social programs. How did they get such a large bill put together so quickly ? WHY was it filled with 50% of NON stimulus items ?

Originally Posted by Bucco
...Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness...the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations...
VK
I guess it needs to be pointed out...again..that the President has no Constitutional authority to increase spending, authorize debt limits or create new taxes...NONE!

Are you suggesting that this congress and this WH are not working together ? Come on VK, you are a very bright guy and you know better !

Originally Posted by Bucco
...In 7 months this administration has made it somehow improper to make money or to even try to make money...
VK
Again, nice sounding words, but how has "this administration" done that? Unless I missed a new law somewhere, not a single tax increase has been enacted since January 20, 2009. Have regulations been enacted to limit excessive compensation by executives of companies who needed massive taxpayer funding to assure their survival? Yes, and appropriately so. All they need do is pay the money back and they can go back to paying themselves as much as they want.
Quote:

Almost on a weekly basis since January we have heard from someone in this administration or congress about high salaries, from the auto companies to the banks to the wall st firms and now they are after the insurance companies. It is implicit in almost everything this adminstration does and says their intent to make anyone with money or earning money to feel corrupt (I sure wish this was a personal issue :)) REMEMBER..this is ONLY SEVEN MONTHS IN

Originally Posted by Bucco
...Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP....
VK
Has there been increased federal spending? Yes, absolutlely. Is it fair to calculate such spending as a percentage of GDP at a time when GDP is at a cyclical low point? Only if you were a statistician or political opinion-writer trying to prove a point with misleading numbers. There are some pretty well-qualified economists that have projected that even the current elevated levels of federal spending will not result in such spending consuming a higher proportion of GDP. In fact, some have projected that with only modest economic growth from where we are now and inflation no better or worse than has been the norm, that government spending as a percentage of GDP will actually decrease in the next ten years. That decrease will be from a level of spending already significantly lower as a percent of GDP than many of the major developed countries in the world.

Again, this is your arena, but do you know how much we are in debt to CHINA ? (I KNOW you do...not being insulting..just making a point). This is NOT the time to be spending and spending and spending. As you always say, times change !

Finally, we agree that we should look at both sides and while you may not believe it, I have tried very hard. I make my same statement that if your trust in this President is shown to be valid, I will post on here in caps for days acknowledging that fact...heck I will pay for an ad !

My fear is that what is being done to our country now is not a easy fix. I hear the WH saying that he is comfortable in being a one term President..that should tell you something about what is going to happen and what his real goals are !

[Guest]

...Are you suggesting that this congress and this WH are not working together ? Come on VK, you are a very bright guy and you know better !...No need to comment further on any of the issues except maybe this one. I guess I might observe that if the President had so much control over the Congress, we wouldn't be in a situation where the partisans are all hollering at one another in town hall meetings in August. The new healthcare reform bill would have been passed before the August recess, as the President directed the Congress. I think that you, many conservative writers and TV personalities and members of this forum blame the POTUS for a lot of what the Congress does, as though he had control over them.

Speaking for myself, I don't think anything could be farther from the truth. Frankly, I wish that the POTUS did have the political skills of someone like LBJ. I think much tighter and better legislation would result. But like the assertion that the Congress is considering the "Obamacare" reforms which have been widely reported not to exist, his alleged control over the 435 carries the same level of inaccuracy.

[Guest]

No need to comment further on any of the issues except maybe this one. I guess I might observe that if the President had so much control over the Congress, we wouldn't be in a situation where the partisans are all hollering at one another in town hall meetings in August. The new healthcare reform bill would have been passed before the August recess, as the President directed the Congress. I think that you, many conservative writers and TV personalities and members of this forum blame the POTUS for a lot of what the Congress does, as though he had control over them.

Speaking for myself, I don't think anything could be farther from the truth. Frankly, I wish that the POTUS did have the political skills of someone like LBJ. I think much tighter and better legislation would result. But like the assertion that the Congress is considering the "Obamacare" reforms which have been widely reported not to exist, his alleged control over the 435 carries the same level of inaccuracy.


Yet, ironically, nobody mentions congress when they discuss the spending during the Bush years !!!!!

[Guest]

Yet, ironically, nobody mentions congress when they discuss the spending during the Bush years !!!!!Who's "nobody"? From all I remember, almost no one blamed the POTUS for the pig-at-the-trough spending during the Bush terms. He was criticized for running as a fiscal conservative and then not using his bully pulpit or veto pen to control a runaway Congress, and probably rightly so. Those same criticisms can be leveled at President Obama. But neither President had much to do with authorizing excessive spending other than simply signing the bills created by Congress that authorized such spending into law.

It's pretty apparent that Bush couldn't control the Congress when it was a GOP majority any better than Obama can control this Democratic-majority Congress. There's a big difference, I think, between "presiding over" out-of-control Congresses and actually authorizing failed fiscal policies--or policies of any kind for that matter. The POTUS is the "face" of each administration, but seldom does he have the political power to make unilateral spending or legislative decisions.

[Guest]

The POTUS is the "face" of each administration, but seldom does he have the political power to make unilateral spending or legislative decisions.

This is something that I've been saying to my friends and family for years. Presidents are figureheads of government that use their persona to lead Congress and the people in the direction that their party wants the country to go. They have very little real power themselves. There have been few presidents in history that have the personality profile that is necessary for a great leader. JFK and Roosevelt were two Democrats that come quickly to mind, even though I didn't agree with all they did I still respect the dynamics of their leadership. Ronald Reagan is the first in my mind on the
Republican side. He is still much vilified buy my Dad as that "actor SOB", but I can think of no one that projected the kind of leadership he did. He maybe bullied Congress, but the goal is to get what you want done accomplished. Who else could have got Soviet Union to take down the Berlin wall? Billy Carter, Bill Clinton, me thinks not.