Supreme Court Gets it Wrong  |   Home  |   Obama OK High Gas Prices

Obama Will Lay Hands on the Economy and All Will Be Well

I have a serious problem with this statement.

“The story of this downturn starts in Washington, and Washington has to change,” he said.

Um.  No.  There were some policies in Washington that were a problem (weak dollar, spending, etc.), but the primary drivers of this economic slump were not because of anything Washington did or did not do.  The housing bubble, oil prices, normal economic cycle, etc. have far more to do with the economic situation than Washington policies. 

Because of that, it worries me that Obama seems to indicate that Washington is wholly responsible for the state of the economy.  It’s either an extremely naive viewpoint or indicative of a mindset that all things flow from government.  Then again, maybe it’s both.

Posted by Owen at 2008 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. But he is the Messiah how can what he says be wrong Owen?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2008 at 2053 hrs
   
   
   

2. Could be neither.

   Obama is not entirely stupid.  Elections are won and lost on “the pocketbook,” so if he connects Bad Economy=Bush=McCain, he wins.

   Posted by dad29 on June 12, 2008 at 2119 hrs
   
   
   

3. Er… you don’t think that economic policies affect the economy? I guess it doesn’t matter if we raise taxes then.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0658 hrs
   
   
   

4. Greenspan with Bush’s backing or Bush’s direction created one heck of a financial bubble to get us through the 2001 mini-recession and 9-11. 

   I don’t think Bush wanted what happened to his father, where the Fed didn’t act quickly enough to juice the economy back in 1990-91.

   The problem here is that the Federal Reserve didn’t raise rates in late 2002 and 2003 to stop the bubble in housing. They instead kept lowering rates. 

   So now once the housing bubble burst last year, the Fed then went back to lowering rates again, killing the dollar and raising commodity prices.

   50 percent of this is the US adjusting to a new world economy.  The other 50% is mismanagment by the Federal Reserve.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0719 hrs
   
   
   

5. It’s a basic view of dems, vs. repub’s. Democrats believe that government is the beginning and end of everything. Republicans believe that government just gets in the way.

   The weak dollar is not 100% on the Fed, but they have had their role.

   There are some plusses to having a weaker dollar - you don’t hear people talking much about the trade deficit these days do you?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0843 hrs
   
   
   

6. So then, you don’t believe that the CEO Administration’s banking legislation had anything to do with the housing crisis?  You don’t believe that a half-trillion dollar war had anything to do with the economy?  You don’t believe that administration atitudes toward oil company mergers had anything to do with the rising cost of oil?

   I think I see the naive viewpoint in the argument

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0848 hrs
   
   
   

7. I take exception with your including oil prices in your list of things that has more to do with the “economic situation” than with Washington policies.  Washington’s short-sightedness caused oil prices to climb by not encouraging domestic exploration & additional refineries.  Washington also could and should have done more to encourage construction of nuclear plants.  It should be noted, however, that the Obama/Clinton party carries the greater blame for this than the Bush/McCain party.

   Respectfully,
   Leonard.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 0923 hrs
   
   
   

8. OK. So the Problem is Washington. He’s a Senator. Does he not think he is ALSO part of the problem?

   What kind of Morons are running his campaign?

   Foust could write a better speech!

   Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on June 13, 2008 at 1921 hrs
   
   
   

9. Steve ($6 million, correct?), you nailed it on the head.  Greenspan didn’t raise rates the recovery of the economic fallout from 9/11, instead leaving them flat.  That policy leaves too many dollars in the market, and cheapens the value of the dollar.

   Leonard, while I’m good with tapping ANWAR, oil shale fields and off the coast of Florida, I believe higher oil prices are the result of a combination of a weak dollar, supplier countries nationalizing oil and a significant inflow of money into commodities index funds that have driven the price of oil.

   Russian and Venezuelan governmental control of oil extraction results in lower productivity, as capital, expertise and technology will not flow into those countries.  Mexico is struggling with the same situation, and as a result, oil field production in those countries is on the decline.

   As a result of the housing fallout, equities have faired poorly, At the same time investors are seeking a return on their money, so the shifting of funds out of equities and into commodity index funds continues to help drive oil prices.  Bloomberg had an article today comparing the run-up in oil (+697% since 2001) with that of the dot.com boom/bust (NASDAQ composite +640% to it’s peak in March 2000). 

   While a weak dollar helps the trade deficit, I believe America is so much better off with a strong greenback.  We’d likely be complaining about $80/bbl oil, not $130+.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 13, 2008 at 2019 hrs
   
   
   

10. Obama is anti-Washington as every statement of his goes. But what confuses me is that if he is a Democrat, which believe that a bigger government is the solution, than why does he oppose Washingtons actions, when his party wants to increase those said responsibilities for the government?
    Could someone give me a little more clarified definition?

    Posted by Chris Jenkins on June 14, 2008 at 1242 hrs
    
    
    

11. Um.  No.  There were some policies in Washington that were a problem (weak dollar, spending, etc.), but the primary drivers of this economic slump were not because of anything Washington did or did not do.  The housing bubble, oil prices, normal economic cycle, etc. have far more to do with the economic situation than Washington policies. 
    

    Ahh sweet sweet partisanship.

    Guy from my party is in charge:

    Well, you see, it’s the economy. Cycles. And oil prices, which my guy can’t control. And world events. The President really doesn’t have much to do with the economy.

    Guy from the other party is in charge:

    Every policy he passed hurt the economy. Everything he said hurt the economy. He’s the President, he gets the blame.

    Like how pretty much every bill the Dems in Wisconsin want to pass will destroy our state’s economy. Same concept.

    
    As least you’re not quite as transparent as Rush Limbaugh, telling us one day the Democrats in Congress are to blame for absolutely everything wrong with the economy the day after telling us they’ve passed absolutely nothing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 14, 2008 at 1926 hrs
    
    
    

12. Saying that government has little or no effect on economic policy is even more “naive” than the often seemingly naive Obama.

    Do you honestly think that the dumbheaded actions of the past 8 years have not had a huge effect on the current economic mess? Here are a few things for you to research that might assist you:

    1. Immediately getting rid of an inherited (and very temporary) surplus.
    2. Never balancing the national budget.
    3. Mis-stating (or lying) about the true cost of the drug plan and then PROHIBITING negotiating the best prices from the mdrug companies.
    4. Neglecting and pretending it’s not important that our nation’s imbalance of trade sends over $2 billion PER DAY to foreign nations.
    5. Neglecting and pretending it’s not important that our national debt has skyrocketed during the past 8 years.
    6. Mis-stating (or lying) about the expected cost of the Iraq war. Remember a Bush Budget Advisor named Lindsey? Poor Larry got fired for telling Bush that the Iraq war might cost a tad more than the $50 billion Team Bush was telling the American people. 
    7. Waging that war without even attempting to pay for it. Currently burning $300 million per day…and not an idea or a plan on how to pay for it.
    8. Using taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street firms that were/are making billions of dollars.
    9. Ignoring mortgage lending abuse…and then proposing even LESS regulation as the answer.
    10. Pretending that it’s a good thing when nations like China buy not only the Treasury bonds to pay for our government but also huge chunks of American business and property.
    11. Increasing the size of our government while pormising to do just the opposite.

    This is just the short list and I’m sure that I’ve missed others. But it’s incredibly “naive” to ever say that government actions have little or no effect on a nation’s economy. Those actions have a dramtic effect and no amount of political bias will hide that fact per the Bush administrations mis-management during the past 8 years.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 15, 2008 at 1154 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.