S&L gives Obama a bad grade for bipartisanship. What the hell world is he living in?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/op...iedman.html?hp
Printable View
S&L gives Obama a bad grade for bipartisanship. What the hell world is he living in?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/21/op...iedman.html?hp
I see you abandoned the thread immediately below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Wow - great corporate earnings have been totally stymied by concerns about the economy - a direct indictment of the effectiveness of Obama and his policies. And now this!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-w...49934.html?x=0
Wow, what a mess.
To blame Obama for all the problems we are experiencing in the economy which were caused by a combination of the Bush recession, the finaincial systems collapse, and other systemic problems in the US is quite disengenious. Read Bernake's testimony today. Its quite a bit more complicated than you describe.
I was hoping you were going to comment on Friedman's article and the evidence that Republicans are doing this nation a great diservice.
i can get back to it.:D i was out of town for work.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
I'll read yours when you read mine LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Fanny and Freddie are bankrupt. Wow. Another government program gone bad - just like Medicare and Social Security (ok, Social Security is GOING bad - ain't there yet). Why on Earth do you trust these idiots with anything -democrat or republican?
A ****ing deer got into my tomatoes. I live 0.3 miles from a major 5 lane thoroughfare. This is on top of suffering a horrible bout of BER, and the "strangulation" of one of my plants (I tied it too tightly with a wire tie). I may have nothing to can in Sept.
Shahien Nasiripour
Bernanke To Congress: The Economy Needs You To Keep Spending
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke reiterated Wednesday his belief that Congress should continue to prop up the sputtering economy, casting aside concerns that the federal budget deficit should trump the economy's need for additional stimulus.
In other words, Congress should spend now and worry about deficits later.
"At the current moment the large deficits, as unattractive as they are, are important for supporting economic activity," the nation's central banker told a Senate panel, citing "weak" private spending and a "great deal of excess capacity."
Bernanke added that he'd be "reluctant to withdraw that support too precipitously in the near term." His comments strongly echoed remarks he made in June.
The debate over budget deficits versus stimulus spending has gripped the nation's capital as the economy, though technically in recovery, continues to exhibit negative trends. For one, the national unemployment rate is essentially unchanged from June 2009. At 9.5 percent, it's fluctuated in the intervening year, rising to 10.1 percent in October before dropping back down last month. About half of the nation's unemployed workers have been jobless for at least six months.
In addition, foreclosures continue to mount. Consumers continue to hold back on spending. Credit is tight. And banks and corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, worried about expansion during a time of such great uncertainty.
Left-leaning Democrats in Congress want to keep their foot on the pedal, pumping money into the economy to make up for the lack of private demand. Moderates and Republicans are more cautious, warning about unsustainable budget deficits and the mounting national debt. The total outstanding pubic debt was $13.2 trillion as of Tuesday, Treasury Department data show
President Barack Obama's 2011 budget forecasts a $1.6 trillion hole, or about 10.6 percent of the nation's total output, a post-World War II high.
Bernanke said there's a time to worry about that -- but it's not now. Policymakers must "maintain some fiscal support for the economy in the near term," he said.
Over the "medium term," though, policymakers must present "credible" plans and pay "serious attention to addressing fiscal issues" in order to maintain the confidence of the financial markets.
When the U.S. government spends more than it generates, it generally has to sell debt (though the Fed could also just print more money). Buyers of that debt expect a rate of return.
Investors were demanding 2.99 percent interest from the U.S. government in order to buy 10-year Treasury bonds as of Monday, a level near historic lows, Treasury data show. Ten years ago, investors demanded double that rate.
But, key to keeping the government's borrowing costs low is maintaining the confidence of the markets.
Bernanke warned Wednesday that if policymakers don't get serious about reducing the annual budget deficit, they'd risk a "loss of confidence."
It's "very important to demonstrate as best we can we are serious about addressing long-term issues," Bernanke said in response to a question by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, the Banking Committee's top Republican. The nation's fiscal path is "unsustainable," Bernanke warned, and that view is "widely shared."
A loss of confidence in America's fiscal well-being could lead investors to demand higher rates of return in order to buy Treasuries, which would drive up the government's borrowing costs. Funds for government programs would instead be diverted to bondholders. Social programs, military spending and the like would suffer.
P.S. God how i wish we could have seen what the economy would have done under the McCain, Palin, and S&L model. i feel strongly it would have been way worse.
We'll never know how good it might have been under McCain, so drop the rhetoric.
So if you were running out of money, would you adopt the "spend now, worry about it later mentality" - especially when tax bases are decreasing? What we are talking about is commen sense vs. theory. Which side are you on?
The bottom line is that our government needs to "stimulate" those which employ us and provide us benefits. Until then, they will hold on to their 1.84 TRILLION dollars of savings because they don't believe Obama can deliver a real answer. This is sad as many Americans believed in Obama's "change".
Or how BAD. Not rhetoric. McCain's choice to be treasury secretary was Phil Gramm. As i have said before look him up because he would have been one of the worst possible choices to tackle this deep economic recession.
You put WAY too much blame on Obama. You may not believe in any of Obama's change but i am WAY glad he is in office as opposed to McCain.
Health care reform and financial reform so far. Energy and immigration reform hopefully. All this with most Republicans choosing to be completely
partisan.
Did you comment on this thread and the article i posted by the way? lol.
What is BER?Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
Rabbits get into my garden.
Always anti govt and you probably dont even realize a 1/4 of what govt has done for you and this country. You would prefer we didnt have social security and medicare etc.? Dont be ridiculous.
There you go. i made it easy for you. :D
What 7 Republicans Could Do
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: July 20, 2010
The hour is late, but there is still a sliver of time to pass a serious energy bill out of this Congress. To do so, though, would require President Obama to rustle up votes with a passion that he has failed to exhibit up to now, and, more importantly, it would require at least seven Republican senators to put the national interest above party and politics. Yes, I know that is all unlikely. You can laugh now. But just remember this: If we don’t get a serious energy bill out of this Congress, and Republicans retake the House and Senate, we may not have another shot until the next presidential term or until we get a “perfect storm” — a climate or energy crisis that is awful enough to finally end our debate on these issues but not so awful as to end the world. But, hey, by 2012, China should pretty much own the clean-tech industry and we’ll at least be able to get some good deals on electric cars.
The energy bill now being discussed in the Senate — which would raise energy-efficiency standards, require utilities to get 15 percent or more of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, and create a limited cap on carbon emissions from power plants — is already watered down just to get 53 or so Democratic votes. But at least it gets us started on ending our addiction to oil and mitigating climate change. Unfortunately, right now it is not clear that a single Republican senator will even vote for this watered-down bill.
That is pathetic. Rather than think seriously about our endless dependence on oil, the G.O.P. has focused its energies on making “climate change” a four-letter word and labeling any Democrat who supports legislation that would in any way raise energy prices to diminish our dependence on oil as a “carbon taxer.”
Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats never effectively fought back. They should have said: “O.K., you Republicans don’t believe in global warming? Fine. Forget about global warming. That’s between you and your beach house. How about this? Do you believe in population growth? Do you believe in the American dream? Because, according to the U.N., the world’s population is going to grow from roughly 6.7 billion people today to about 9.2 billion by 2050. And in today’s integrated world, more and more of those 9.2 billion will aspire to, and be able to, live like Americans — with American-size cars, homes and Big Macs. In that world, demand for fossil fuels is going to go through the roof — and all the bad things that go with it.
“If we take that threat seriously now and pass an energy bill that begins to end our oil addiction, we can shrink the piles of money we send to the worst regimes in the world, strengthen our dollar by keeping more at home, clean up our air, take away money from the people who finance the mosques and madrassas that keep many Muslim youths backward, angry and anti-American and stimulate a whole new industry — one China is already leapfrogging us on — clean-tech. Nothing would improve our economic and national security more, yet Republicans won’t lift one finger to make it happen.
“They would rather we send more Americans to fight terrorism in the Middle East, let petro-states hostile to our interests get richer and let China take the lead in the next great global industry than ask Americans to pay a little more for the gas they use or the carbon pollution they put into the air. If OPEC, China and Russia could vote, they would be 100 percent supportive of the Republicans.
“How about we stop honoring our soldiers and our military families and start helping them? Nope. The Republican view of fighting the war on terrorism is that rather than ask all of us to make a small sacrifice to weaken our foes and buttress our troops, we should ask only a few of us to make the ultimate sacrifice. And that’s called being tough?”
It gets worse. As Fred Krupp, the president of Environmental Defense Fund, notes: U.S. utility companies today “are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital — but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be. In just one state, Indiana, there are 25 power plants 50 years old or older. The fleet needs to be modernized, and Senate paralysis is keeping it from happening. A recent study from the Peterson Institute projects annual investment in the sector in the next 10 years would rise by 50 percent as a result of climate legislation — an increase of nearly $11 billion a year.” That’s new employment from a private sector stimulus.
Can you imagine how high the stock market would soar and how easy a compromise with Democrats would become if Republicans offered an energy policy consistent with their values and our interests? What if the G.O.P. said: We will support a carbon tax provided one-third of the revenue goes toward cutting corporate taxes, one-third toward cutting payroll taxes for every working American and one-third toward paying down the deficit. The G.O.P. would actually help us get a better energy policy.
Surely there are seven Republican senators who can see this. Aren’t there?
P.S. S&L if you care about this country you care about this.
Blossom End Rot. It is said to be caused by uneven watering / extreme wet / dry, and / or a lack of Calcium. The one variety I grow seems sensitive to it (the canners). The others are fine (slicers). For whatever reason, this year seems bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
There is a place and need for government. I understand that.
Well this thread started off as an attempt to give you another example of how most Republicans are letting this country down by doing nothing but pushing against bipartisanship.There is a moderate energy bill that can be passed but they would rather score points.
I think we probably have exhausted this subject and the one about govt as well.We just see things very differently. Good luck with your BER.
When you agree that partisanship is a two way street; I'll agree that the republicans are blocking this legislation. I hate the way the guy uses the word "we" as if he is congressional democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
i agree that partisanship is a two way street. I thought you believed EVERYTHING was Obama's fault. I seem to remember you graded him with an F. Patently absurd. Beck and Palin crazy. Wacky. Just plain dumb. :D
OK, I agree that the f'ing republicans are blocking this legislation - so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
No, not everything is Obama's fault. He is simply the PIC right now (person in charge), and yes, I think the direction he is taking is wrong. He's bloating a bloated federal government.
So the direction he is taking on energy is wrong?
The direction the country was taking before was right?
I don't know, but will offer this about solar. I wouldn't invest just yet as the technology is getting better and better. Next week I spend a whole week in CA making calls to solar companies. Should be interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha