Obama is fixing GOP's economic mess

Obama is fixing GOP's economic mess
By Hilary Rosen, CNN Contributor
October 14, 2010 4:17 p.m. EDT


(CNN) -- Consider a few facts that the Republicans keep missing. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Ed Rollins can pooh-pooh the fact that Democrats have been in control for two years -- but it took eight years to get us into this mess. And we have been crawling out of the hole ever since.

The fact is that this White House and the Democrats in Congress have been focusing on jobs. To focus on jobs, you have to fix the economy first, which the Democrats did. And as important, Democrats have tried to focus on those who have been hurt from eight years of neglect. What does that mean?

It means 16 different tax breaks and supports for small business owners, who were neglected by the Republicans for eight years.

It means making student loans more affordable by cutting middleman subsidies, which had been growing for eight years.

It took eight years to get us into this mess. And we have been crawling out of the hole ever since.

It means investing in solar and electric cars and alternative energy, which has been neglected for eight years.

Then, it means curtailing deceptive banking practices, which have been getting worse and screwing consumers for eight years.

And it means providing tax breaks for middle-class Americans, who have been squeezed for eight years.

In 2010, corporate profits will be as high as they have been since 1997. We will see whether the cash that industry is sitting on will be used to invest and grow and create jobs here at home or whether it will pay bonuses to senior executives while shipping jobs overseas.

If Republicans are in charge, they will choose the latter, because they will suffer no consequences for their actions. If Democrats are in charge, they will likely choose the former. We know that because that is what they said they would do at the start of the Obama administration.

This administration didn't demonize business. There are countless examples of the White House partnering with business to promote investments that will grow this country's workforce and restore economic health. They came to the table. But once Republicans started offering businesses the actual store if they helped them get back in power, business pulled back from that table.

The timing was not a coincidence. In fact, Rep. John Boehner said it best on the day the Financial Regulatory Reform billl was on the Senate floor. "The Republicans are the only ones standing between you and reform." But they had to get in power.

Now, Wall Street and the big banks are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, waiting to see if the Republicans will help them line their pockets instead of lending that money into the system to invest in the economy and grow jobs.

The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Hilary Rosen.

I have a couple questions about this nut job. How will democrats reinvest Corporate profits from the private sector? How can she say middle class Americans have need tax relief when they got it under Bush? Even Obama wants to keep those breaks in place, right? Lastly, one must argue that the "mess" we are in took far more than 8 years to create. Havakasha posted one article that cited Clinton Policy as a key reason. Many cite, correctly or not, Carter Policy. And to be fair, let's throw in Reagan and Bush 1.

This article is simply a political attempt to disparage her rival party. Politics at its finest. It is a shame that CNN would print such pollution. And who is Hilary Rosen?

"Hilary Rosen, a CNN contributor, is a Democratic political strategist and former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America."

Funny how that works.

Wow. "16 different tax breaks and supports for small business owners".
S&L you should be really happy about those proposals by the Obama administration. i quess you've been shouting from the roof to get those passed huh? Lol.

And i know how much you are worried about the middle class in this country and the inequality that has developed and increased during the past 8 years.
Why is it that people like you seem to be so obsessed about only themselves?

"Elizabeth Warren said the U.S. middle class has seen a steady deterioration in its economic security for more than a decade. She noted that economic disparities had sharply widened during the most recent boom, which terminated in the housing crash that was widely blamed on reckless bank lending.
Warren also noted that while median family incomes rose 37 percent during the 1960s, a period of prosperity, they had grown just 1.9 percent in the 2000s because the wealth had flowed so disproportionately to the already-rich.
She suggested that a lack of protections in the law for consumers would have saved many from taking out ill-advised loans and that better data collection on financial-sector activities would make it easier to spot budding trouble spots.

"Anyone who wants to understand why America's middle class is not bouncing back from the 2008 crash should remember that, unlike in early boom-and-bust cycles, middle class families had no parachutes when they were pushed off a cliff in the Great recession of 2008," Warren said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Wow. "16 different tax breaks and supports for small business owners".
S&L you should be really happy about those proposals by the Obama administration. i quess you've been shouting from the roof to get those passed huh? Lol.

And i know how much you are worried about the middle class in this country and the inequality that has developed and increased during the past 8 years.
Why is it that people like you seem to be so obsessed about only themselves?

"Elizabeth Warren said the U.S. middle class has seen a steady deterioration in its economic security for more than a decade. She noted that economic disparities had sharply widened during the most recent boom, which terminated in the housing crash that was widely blamed on reckless bank lending.
Warren also noted that while median family incomes rose 37 percent during the 1960s, a period of prosperity, they had grown just 1.9 percent in the 2000s because the wealth had flowed so disproportionately to the already-rich.
She suggested that a lack of protections in the law for consumers would have saved many from taking out ill-advised loans and that better data collection on financial-sector activities would make it easier to spot budding trouble spots.

"Anyone who wants to understand why America's middle class is not bouncing back from the 2008 crash should remember that, unlike in early boom-and-bust cycles, middle class families had no parachutes when they were pushed off a cliff in the Great recession of 2008," Warren said.

---

Havakasha - the master of avoidance. BTW, I am middle class - not high, not low, but middle.

I'll answer for you. I'm sure you won't mind.

S&L - thanks for the post. You may disagree with the progress of this administration, and as you know, I disagree with you. Regarding the 3 questions you pose. My answers are below.

1.) "How will democrats reinvest Corporate profits from the private sector?"

Well S&L, I don't know how the government can "force" private corporations to hire. Perhaps we can establish policy that incentivizes hiring and capital investment. As you may know, we have pushed to make R&D expenses a write off. It's a good proposal, and more people should get behind it and leave politics out of it.

2.) "How can she say middle class Americans have need tax relief when they got it under Bush? Even Obama wants to keep those breaks in place, right?"

Well S&L, you make a good point here. I have to give you credit. We still need to restore the rate for the rich, but clearly the administration needs to extend the existing rate to the middle class.

3.) "Lastly, one must argue that the "mess" we are in took far more than 8 years to create. Havakasha posted one article that cited Clinton Policy as a key reason. Many cite, correctly or not, Carter Policy. And to be fair, let's throw in Reagan and Bush 1."

Yes, I did post an article where the author squarely placed blame on Clinton, but you need to realize that the issue is very complicated. Private Banks, freed from regulation under Clinton and Bush were allowed to make tons of sub prime loans. As you know, I believe this is the root cause of the financial mess. And these CEO's, they screw the whole thing up, and walk away with millions of dollars in bonuses. It just isn't right. The republicans don't seem to mind this behavior.

I hope I've addressed your concerns. You know, we are making progress. Trillions of dollars were literally flushed away from the economy. Do you know how long it takes to count to 1 trillion? Check it out - 31,709.79 YEARS!! (assuming 1 second at a time). There's a lot to make up. We all need to be patient.

"This article is simply a political attempt to disparage her rival party. Politics at its finest. It is a shame that CNN would print such pollution. And who is Hilary Rosen?

"Hilary Rosen, a CNN contributor, is a Democratic political strategist and former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America."

Funny how that works".

If you like, respect and use that logic to make decisions you should never watch Faux again.

Apparently my 10/27 post re what one needs to keep in mind while analyzing information from any source was too long for you.

Pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atypical

"This article is simply a political attempt to disparage her rival party. Politics at its finest. It is a shame that CNN would print such pollution. And who is Hilary Rosen?

"Hilary Rosen, a CNN contributor, is a Democratic political strategist and former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America."

Funny how that works".

If you like, respect and use that logic to make decisions you should never watch Faux again.

Apparently my 10/27 post re what one needs to keep in mind while analyzing information from any source was too long for you.

Pity.

---

I thought it was a perfect example of the spirit of your 10/27 post.

I thought you would clearly see it. All of it. Seriously, you didn't get it?

Can you clarify the boldend sentence?

SL
As usual, you like almost everyone else, think it’s easy to decide quickly something that requires more time and effort. That’s why simple, emotional bullshit is so attractive to so many who think it is “profound truth”.

I know you’re working but shut the door. Say you are in a long-distance meeting.

Let’s dissect.

“Ed Rollins can pooh-pooh the fact that Democrats have been in control for two years -- but it took eight years to get us into this mess. And we have been crawling out of the hole ever since”.

When criticism from repubs and dems say more should have been done in Obama’s two years some of that may be true (for different reasons), depending on issue. Many of the problems in any administration can take longer to remedy than the time it took to create the problem.

Summary – true depending on issue.

“The fact is that this White House and the Democrats in Congress have been focusing on jobs. To focus on jobs, you have to fix the economy first, which the Democrats did. And as important, Democrats have tried to focus on those who have been hurt from eight years of neglect. What does that mean?”

Partially true. Many have said there wasn’t enough stress placed on jobs and too much on corporate assistance and tax breaks. Tax breaks do not help the economy as much as other actions.

“It means 16 different tax breaks and supports for small business owners, who were neglected by the Republicans for eight years.“

I don’t know if her quoted number is correct. I will assume it is because by itself the info is only moderately critical. Until I know more and I probably will.

“It means making student loans more affordable by cutting middleman subsidies, which had been growing for eight years.’

True.

“Then, it means curtailing deceptive banking practices, which have been getting worse and screwing consumers for eight years.”

True. Warren’s appointment is a big help.

“And it means providing tax breaks for middle-class Americans, who have been squeezed for eight years.”

True. Middle class wages have decreased and stagnated over the last thirty years.

“In 2010, corporate profits will be as high as they have been since 1997. We will see whether the cash that industry is sitting on will be used to invest and grow and create jobs here at home or whether it will pay bonuses to senior executives while shipping jobs overseas.

If Republicans are in charge, they will choose the latter, because they will suffer no consequences for their actions. If Democrats are in charge, they will likely choose the former. We know that because that is what they said they would do at the start of the Obama administration.”

Para one; Corporations don’t want to spend if demand is sluggish but the comment on bonuses and outsourcing is potentially true as has already been proven by the financial sector, among others.

Para two;
Repubs are the corporate party exclusively – they don’t hide it. I wish dems would do what they say but that is not always true.

“This administration didn't demonize business. There are countless examples of the White House partnering with business to promote investments that will grow this country's workforce and restore economic health. They came to the table. But once Republicans started offering businesses the actual store if they helped them get back in power, business pulled back from that table.

The timing was not a coincidence. In fact, Rep. John Boehner said it best on the day the Financial Regulatory Reform billl was on the Senate floor. "The Republicans are the only ones standing between you and reform." But they had to get in power.

Now, Wall Street and the big banks are sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, waiting to see if the Republicans will help them line their pockets instead of lending that money into the system to invest in the economy and grow jobs.”

True. Businesses don’t want ANY regulation so if it is even suggested they howl discrimination and play the martyr.

“The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Hilary Rosen”

Opinions CAN be accurate. One has to know what to look for as I have shown.

“I have a couple questions about this nut job. CHILDISH COMMENT. YOUR NARROW MIND NEVER DISAPPOINTS. How will democrats reinvest Corporate profits from the private sector? CORP WILL - NOT GOVT. YOU MISREAD. I'M SHOCKED, JUST SHOCKED. How can she say middle class Americans have need tax relief when they got it under Bush? BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OVER THIRTY YEARS AND THE NEED TO PANDER TO POLITICS SINCE THE STUPID THINK TAX CUTS CAN CURE CANCER. Even Obama wants to keep those breaks in place, right? Lastly, one must argue that the "mess" we are in took far more than 8 years to create. Havakasha posted one article that cited Clinton Policy as a key reason. Many cite, correctly or not, Carter Policy. And to be fair, let's throw in Reagan and Bush 1. OVER TIME THERE HAS BEEN CONSTANT CHIPPING AWAY AT REGULATIONS INCLUDING TAX RULES. ALL ADMINISTRATIONS SINCE REAGAN HAVE CONTRIBUTED BUT NOT IN EQUAL MEASURE.

This article is simply a political attempt to disparage her rival party. THE EVIDENCE AS I HAVE SHOWN DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR POINT. Politics at its finest. It is a shame that CNN would print such pollution. HOLY SHIT! AND YOU LIKE FAUX? THE WORD HYPOCRITE IN THE DICTIONARY SHOWS YOUR PICTURE. And who is Hilary Rosen? APPARENTLY IF YOU DON’T KNOW SOMEONE THAT PERSON AND THEIR COMMENTS ARE USELESS TO YOU. DECIDE ON THE MERITS IF YOU'RE CAPABLE OF IT. OH, NEVER MIND!

"Hilary Rosen, a CNN contributor, is a Democratic political strategist and former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America."

Funny how that works.

I consider a lot of what John Dean says and he is a republican. CRAP!!! Now I have to start ignoring him because he’s the ENEMY! SO HE MUST ALWAYS LIE. HE MUST BE STUPID THEN TOO. AND DID I MENTION HE'S A REPUBLICAN? I GUESS I SHOULD I HATE HIM, IGNORE AND RIDICULE WHAT HE SAYS. THAT'S WHAT SL DOES. ESPECIALLY IF I DIDN'T KNOW HIS NAME I DEFINITELY WOULD BECAUSE THAT'S APPARENTLY WHAT MAKES YOU REALLY SMART. SL TOLD ME THAT SO IT MUST BE TRUE. AND I WANT TO BE JUST AS SMART AS SL. DID I MENTION DEAN IS A REPUBLICAN?

Overall, this is essentially a factual piece. Like a financial pr release there are “forward looking” statements that do not materially detract from the substance.

That's your take. I don't believe you because I know you are liberal; hence biased, and only working toward the proliferation of your strong beliefs. You make a good show though, put on a good act - pompous, but still good.

Bush did cut taxes, just as Obama did recently. PERIOD. It's factual history. You can try to provide any context you wish.

You misread, here.

a.) "If Democrats are in charge, they will likely choose the former"

b.) what is the former? "We will see whether the cash that industry is sitting on will be used to invest and grow and create jobs here at home"

So, how will democrats choose to invest and grow and create jobs here at home wth that pile of corporate cash? Any ideas enlightened one? I'm not an English major, but it seems pretty clear. In fact, Romer is on record for saying "we need to make them".......

Of course you will defend this article. You are nothing less than a liberal schill. You have shown consistency in defending liberalism and deriding conservatism. Your opinion cannot be taken objectively any longer. In fact, somewhere in this mess of posts you say liberalism is the ONLY way. But you are still learning, ever learning......................