Obama turns out to be another dumb democrat

[comment deleted at request of author]

I read this story online from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer site and found it interesting too.  When I read the title of this thread though I got interested even further.  I just had a little request.  One simple question.  What do you propose our government does to address the problem Obama attempted to fix with his CEO salary cap?

I hate to see my taxes paying for those responsible (or better, those irresponsible) for this economic slump while those corporate executives get away with billions in bonuses but unless you have a problem with government interfering into the private world of business, then enlighten me as to how Obama is not improving the nations economic condition by capping the salaries of CEOs.

nice talking points... you totally have me convinced with your ineffectual and incoherent rant about which you apparently have never done any independent research... thank you for your infinite regurgitated evening news wisdom... may I please have more?

I'm glad the first response was intelligent.

1. I think the capping of the salaries is the second best answer to the situation.  I think the best choice is letting the companies fail.

2.  I lost?  You're right.  I lost my vote and sense of civic pride. 

Don't those companies provide employment and involve systems of dependency between several groups? I'm actually asking, I don't know anything about this topic. But it seems like letting companies fail would result in some sort of economic collapse in the system. I agree, it's not right to sustain a failing system, but I also don't know that letting it collapse is a good thing either, because everything is interconnected. =/

It almost seems like you're spoiling for a fight.  It seems to me that you probably had him judged long before he actually took office.

I didn't vote.  I exercise my right not to (it's a bigger discussion than just this one election), but I can recognize good when I see it.

I find very little that redeems the previous administration.  Amidst a nearly start to finish record of bad educational, religious, scientific, foreign policy/relations, economic, political, environmental policies and policy decisions there is very little to redeem our previous president and administration.  Even former loyalists fled the sinking ship.  Among these things are a few (very few, sadly) things that he did well.  Humanitarian aid for the tsunami and Africa, a gender and an ethnically (though not politically) diverse cabinet were a few of them.

Still, his campaign is overshadowed by a trend of bad decisions and policy.  It is in THAT light he should be judged.  It is the character of the individual, and the character of the party (if I may personify them) that really comes through.

Now, you've got a newly elected and sworn in president, who has to don tattered mantle of the office of the president, who still has limited power, and is somewhat bound by the actions of congress and the decisions of the previous era.  He's forced to deal with bailout plan that isn't specifically of his making, and still has to play the political game with Congressional politics.  This 'stimulus' package is fraught with peril and mired in dissent over exactly what the right thing to do would be.  I have my ideas of how it should be done, as does everyone else.  Jon Stewart has some pretty good ideas on the matter as well.  Yet we aren't the ones making the choices.

Obama supporters tended towards idealism, and built him up in their respective heads.  He will not be perfect, and he'll make mistakes.  I'm more inclined to look at what he is trying to do.  You complain about the 'only 500,000' cap that he placed on the senior executives in companies that hope to recieve money.  What would be better?  200k?  100k?  As it was there was previously NO restriction.  He's frozen pay for his senior positions in his cabinet, he's attempting to close Gitmo, He's opening up (though executive orders) the increasingly shadowy and closed off government.  He's admitted to screwing up and making mistakes of judgement.  He's attempting to repeal don't ask don't tell policies (to allow openly gay people to serve).  He's already reaching out to other countries and he's attempted to instill good policies within his administration.

Before you get started on the whole lobbyist thing.  I recognize that it was a little strange that he would so adamantly oppose lobbyists in the position, instill a policy, then almost immediately request waivers for the polilcy.  The way I see it is this, I highly doubt that anyone at that level could avoid some kind of bias in their positions.  Everyone brings with them their prejudices and beliefs, and it's unlikely that anyone could function at that level without drawing upon those opinions in some way.  The administration (Obama) has stated that the two individuals for which he requested waivers are uniquely qualified for the nominated positions.  The waivers also require recusal in matters pertaining to their former lobbied companies.  It sounds like a fair comprimise in what was a pretty sticky situation.  Why would he do that?  Probably because he believes the anti-lobby rule is a generally a good idea.

You make the mistake of judging him based upon a decision he made to make the bailout money MORE restrictive, yet do not recognize it for the improvement it is over what was originally going out.  It might be a simple mistake on your part, but I suspect that this post isn't really about this one decision.

He's been in office less than a month and his character seems mostly intact, and still good. He hit the ground running.  Not perfect of course, but if you expect that, perhaps you need to start your own country, where the leader is you.  That way, every decision the leader makes will be perfectly in line with your opinion.

I agree with you in that fiscally liberal policies aren't neccessarily the most pragmatical and effective solutions; I believe in capitalism's ability to straighten itself out. To a point. It's important to note that it isn't CEOs of struggling businesses who caused the recesion; it was banking policies (corruption, not incompetence). The companies who are benefiting from the stimulus are struggling because of a recession which they did not cause and which is affecting all businesses, affecting everyone. Therefore, there is no reason to "punish" corperations.

Second, whether or not you feel that companies "deserve" bailout money, economic stimulus will have a direct impact on the number of people that they are able to employ (at least in the short term). Lay-offs have a domino effect: unemployed people consume less, so other companies lose profits, lay off workers, etc. Additionally, companies that are forced to let go of employees may themselves become less efficient and high-quality, furthering their troubles. For these reasons, I think that our country's goal right now should be to keep major businesses afloat and thus reduce unemployment as much as possible, and a bailout bill is able, at least in the short term, to do that.

You seem to me to be irritated as much with Obama's public image as much as with his fiscal policies. I agree: America has been bitten by the optimism bug to a degree that is unjustified. Even so, the mere fact that this optimism exists may have concrete benefits. So much of consumerism and economic functioning depends on psychological elements: do people feel secure enough to spend money, to start new businesses, to fully participate in the capitalist system? If they do, we may be ready to start the slow process of digging ourselves out of this situation.

You also have to keep in mind that the people in D.C. in office now and most of the people who have been there do not WANT a recession of any sorts. You have to realize that those politicians know 100 fold more about any of this countries dilemnas than any of us do. If the country collapses, they lose the life they want to live as well. These people want to change everything for the better. It is not going to happen in the next couple weeks or months, I think most of America is just used to instant gratification, that's how we got here in the first place. Let the people try to do what they do best, and if anyone feels they have more insight or some better way of doing things than get off this blog and go do something about it.

I agree with you thread creator.

I voted for Obama but I think the salary cap is just stupid.  Give me a break Obama......

Does he just want to do something to please the mindless masses and have them think he is punishing the CEO's of these wrecklessly invesing companies that are being bailed out right now?

If so this is an incredibly stupid way of doing that.  Not that I have a better one off the top of my head but then again, I'm not the president of this country.

I would just like to point out that this plan to cap executive pay originally came before congress in the form of a $400,000 cap on executive pay from an independent congressperson from Vermont, not from one of us "pin-headed liberals". Personally, I support the plan to cap executive pay for those companies that accept money from the bail-out plan. While I agree that there is much to be said for our capitalist system, I don't really feel that this really has anything to do with that. You see, to me it seems like companies who come to the government to get millions of taxpayer dollars so that they can continue to operate are no longer capitalists. If they wanted to be capitalists, and to retain their freedom to pay their executives whatever they should so choose, they should not have accepted our money. However, now that the have, they must agree to a new level of clarity and public scrutiny as well as some new regulations (like executive pay caps).

I've heard economists call the bail-out plan the best bad solution to diffuse some of the affects of the economic crisis that we are in (a "lesser of two evils" thing).... which I think is an interesting way of looking at it. I don't think that there is going to be one perfect solution to this huge economic crisis, and I think that this one has some good things to offer our country... I would love to hear what other solutions you support since you think this one is so terrible.

Obama is doing his best to work within the system that we have. Drastically altering or getting rid of that system will do no good for our country, especially in these times of economic uncertainty. A lack of appropriate regulation of certain practices is what got us into this mess in the first place, so I am doubtful that more de-regulation would be of any help at all..... Let’s be pragmatic here.

who are you calling dumb? Greed got us and the rest of the world into this mess...no use blaming Obama

eah. i don't have the time to respond to your post right now. just some advice for right now:

read, research on your own. don't let some newspaper/tv tell you how to feel. figure out how to do it, once you learn you will stop sounding so ignorant.

throssk

Good effort on the Matt Taibbi impression. Spell check might help make it more convincing though. And try citing some sources

Chad and Stefanw

Thank you for adding informative, well written, well researched posts to this discussion. Very refreshing.

Mathes SUCKS!!!!!! says: Does he just want to do something to please the mindless masses and have them think he is punishing the CEO's of these wrecklessly invesing companies that are being bailed out right now?

No, Mathes, he's trying to make sure that the money the big businesses get from the gov. does not end up in the wrong places.  Like the economists Meredith quoted said, this may not be the best solution, but it's the BEST Obama can do with what he's been given. Those of you who find fault with what he's doing should take a good hard look at the last eight years, and compaire them to what's happening now. In my opinion, it's like night and day.

Um....so I would love to have the same optimistic outlook as the starter of this epic conversation and debate. Congrats on destroying a man who is trying to peice together a complete hell hole of problems that will probably still be happening if not worse when he leaves in four years. I have a great idea, you be president. I would love to see you fix all of our problems because you seem to know exactly how to do it. Here is a news flash: we are in deep shit. Not only the US, but the entire world. Things are not going well and our entire nation's hope has been dumped onto one man who believes that he has a plan and can help in some way. In his speech he even admitted that we have a long journey ahead of us. There will be alot of difficult desicions that he will make to the best of his ability, and he acknowledged that he may often be wrong, but he will try his best to work with the US to save this country. 

now if you think you have a plan to brighten this hell hole economy, then run for office.

the ad hominem responses to the original post won't help and they aren't a viable form of dialogue. likewise, how little faith we have in a man who is solely responsible for a nation whose economic collapse has been written for the last 10 years? corporate ethics aside, these are companies who employ hundreds of thousands of Americans in some way or another. there is no easy solution, but letting them fail would be a terrible mistake (if you've followed editorials by the nation's experts during the last 4 years, you'll realize that the Obama plan represents one of the more pragmatic courses for the country). The man is not the Messiah. the man is a man, doing what's best in a very difficult situation. our problem is holding him to standards that we have created, not standards he has established for himself - he has been consistent in his measured, mature, and reasonable approach.

The Obama administration is functioning in a hopelessly rooted political apparatus governed for generations by corporate robber-barons and lobbying firms. the only effective path to change is incremental; he can't shed the system because the system still sustains this country. but he can, and is, doing his very best to exercise damage control using the resources he was given. some of these resources include established politicos who have operated within DC for the better part of their professional lives.

to isolate a few elements for criticism while ignoring the bigger picture seems to be the understandable but unfortunate recourse for a lot of frustrated Americans, but I personally voted for Change, not Magic. The worst we can do is exchange transformative hope for shallow disenchantment, at which point we've diminished all potential for a solution. let's be informed, thoughtful, proactive and forward-looking. his policy reversals have already benefited many (overturn on US support abroad for sexual education and disease prevention, a policy the Bush Admin. rejected despite its destructive effects on the developing world). it's insane to expect unreasonable change when the situation is such a mess.

news sources such as www.thenation.com, www.theatlantic.com, www.guardian.co.uk, aljazeera english, truthdig, the new republic, etc. are good places to start. please cross-check your supposed "truths" before you start forming premature opinions. there has been a lot of good, but just like huge messes materialize over prolonged periods, solutions also require patience, time, and support in order to take root. we have to shed our idea of a nanny state governed by omniscient political saviors. we the people have contributed to our plight by buying into false guarantees, and we're equally responsible for helping our President get us out of this mess. Like he stated in the inauguration speech - it's time for Americans to grow up and face our predicament as adults who are capable of creating change, not helpless innocents led to the slaughter by the sinister phantoms of industry.

 Just wondering, what anti-trust legislation has been passed since this economic fiasco started? Have our representatives passed any kind of corporate regulations so our economy doesn't rest on a few too-big firms? (I'm actually asking this because I don't know and I want to hear facts) Would this kind of action be too intrusive of our government?

And now for a more humorous/politically biased question: Don't the people defending Obama kinda sound a LITTLE BIT like people that defended Bush during his presidency? (I know, its different, but I couldn't help but notice) :-)

People defending Obama/”no whiners” people:
1.

2.

3.

4.

People defending Bush (over the past eight years)/”no whiners” people:

1.

2.

3.

4.

that's a stretch, casey. doesn't work for me on any level. it's like asking, "don't the people who claim tomatoes are fruit sound suspiciously like the people claiming bananas are fruit?", or "isn't it uncanny how similar 'battle of the bands' is to "Battle of the Bulge?". Furthermore, isn't it eerie how drawing comparisons is like drawing box-shaped assemblages of lines on a piece of paper?

I agree with you, Casey.

Id like to see what u would do if u became president in this shit hole of a situation. dont blame obama. there are plenty of others who should be rightfully blamed.

You can insinuate a parallel where none exists.  You can take snippets to quote out of context (like you did mine) while disregarding the entire substantive portion of my post in favor of the single, sarcastic point I made at the end, in order to make it sound more apologist than it is.  You can even inferr that I'm an Obama supporter by including me in with quotes of others who also may or may not be (or have been) Obama supporters.

I can tell you, at least from my perspective, that you're wrong.  Your attempt to draw a parallel is ineffective, because the quotes you've drawn from show a distinct. You've drawn a false connection simply by stating that they 'kinda sound a LITTLE BIT like people that defended bush' (interesting use of caps to emphasize the ironic use of the words 'little bit', as if it gave your assertion more weight, but I'll digress on this point).

 To address your quote 'comparisons':

1.  This is the easiest and most functionally void comparison you can make.  Where someone complains there will always be another person that will say, in effect, 'get over it'.  It is an inevitability, and gives your comparison no weight whatsoever.

2.  You could do a simple reading of these and say they mean the same thing.  There is, however, a difference between them, intent, which is perhaps more apparant to some than to others.  Let me explain.  In the 'Bush' support claim, it's a rephrasing of  'If you don't like my rules, get out', or, if you prefer, "If you're not with us, your against us." All of which are essentially combative ultimatums.  My point (I can't believe I'm obliged to explain this difference) was a sarcastic, and obviously unrealistic, suggestion of an alternative that was intended to point out my original point.  You cannot judge the current president by this single act alone.  Disagreement with a decision and dissent are acceptable and frankly expected.  However, if you lived in a country where the only leader and the only member of the population were one and the same person, it wouldn't happen.  Add one more person, and your 100% agreement immediately ends.

3.  If you can't distinguish between apologists of the Bush administration acting upon poor (and wrong) intelligence, putting it forward as if it were fact, misdirecting information and dragging us into a war we should not have been involved in in the first place, and Obama taking the office of President during one of the most troubling times in our Nation's history, I'm not sure any kind of explanation will do.  These are not similar statements, similar context, or similar justifications despite your attempt to make them so.

4. You're the closest on this one of them all.  I would point out that virtually all the indicators for prosperity and growth that we have were undoubtedly stronger at the end of the Clinton era, despite his extracurricular activites.  Dalliances aside, his administration was far more effective than Bush's.  I don't recall being quite so personally uncertain about the future of our country then, do you?  Given the age of most of the posters here, I'm guessing that most of them weren't even politically aware enough to have any kind of genuine sense of the difference between the ends of these respective eras.  The parallel in the quotes you provided is there, as I said, I just happen to know that one is more accurate than the other.

Just so we're clear, I'm not an Obama supporter specifically.  That doesn't mean I'm opposed to him either.  I'm glad he's in, if only because our country needed something different.  So far, in what I've seen, he's done a lot of things that I'm glad for, and only a few things that have made me wonder what he was thinking.

I will say, Obama said, 'I screwed up' with regards to the Daschle fiasco.  That, in my book, is him taking responsibility and his mistake publicly and genuinely.  When was the last time you heard Bush admit to a mistake that HE made?  People disliked him more than Nixon when he resigned.  I have more respect for Nixon by far, because at least he apologized for his actions, and nothing he did was nearly as bad as the mess we're in right now.

I haven't read all the posts. What I will say is that it's impotant to remember about the capitalist/Bourgousie versus the proletariat. The proletariat sells their labor, the capitalist puts that labor to use, the capitalists sell products back to the proletariat. OK so basically this is good solution because the capitalists that provide the jobs are being held accountable for not doing a good job, while allowing them to continue to provide jobs. It may not be the best solution but the economic model that most accept is one where this makes the most sense in wake of a bailout. It's also symbolic and it sends a message (the greatest power the President has) to everyone that he isn't going to let Wall Street take a shit on Main Street and continue to make 683028457392 (exaggeration) billion times as much as everyone currently taking unemployment. Think about it, imposing justice on the corporate world...it's genius. It's how you cater to the masses. It's a prudent move on his part that is a great small win.

Basically it all boils down to this:

If you are like me and opposed the bailout (that passed by large majority), you have to advocate for corrective action because we can't recreate the past. This is the best fix and I don't think it's liberal at all. It's pragmatic and logical. If you do a shit job, you deserve shit pay. It's justice. I get it, you don't like the government spending money in stupid ways. But if you've already given out a lot, why not just make it suck for the perpetrators?

There are two p's in 'propping' and 'a lot' is two words, not one.

Oh geeze I'm so sorry you wrote so much on this......this was pretty much just supposed to be humorous and, IF ANYTHING, a comment that would hopefully get people to watch what they say (so they won't end up making the same mistakes the bush supporters made)....And keep in mind I also qualified it with my comment about how I said they were obviously different. In any case, please, take my last post with a grain of salt.
 

Now, back to what my ORIGINAL question was that I really wanted people to answer (which, due to my attempt at "making a funny", I diverted attention away from)

I wrote:

Just wondering, what anti-trust legislation has been passed since this economic fiasco started? Have our representatives passed any kind of corporate regulations so our economy doesn't rest on a few too-big firms? (I'm actually asking this because I don't know and I want to hear facts) Would this kind of action be too intrusive of our government?

To my knowledge, the only antitrust legislation Congress is currently considering is focused on airlines. It would be problematic for our government to ask banks to merge and pass new antitrust legislation to prevent that practice at the same time.

I think American government prefers to act in cycles when it comes to financial antitrust. Force mergers of failing banks, then when they get too powerful break them up again only to force new mergers a decade or two later. A very similar thing happened in the 1980s.

 What's the big deal with reading newspapers or watching TV news.  Does it make you a mindless sheep in the flock just because you do?  There isn't any problem with including the views or facts newspapers or tv's attempt to present to you in your overall view on issues.  Just because you bring up a newspaper story or tv story to ignite discussion doesn't mean an individual bases their moral and political philosophies on them.  How do you make that connection?  So I read newspapers, therefore I don't know how to independently research issues?  I'm glad that I get labelled as ignorant for THAT.

Say what you want about keeping the failing companies afloat. I am against that in principle however, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE BEST SOLUTION IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE CLAIREVOYANT TO FIGURE THAT OUT! Economics is a fascinating subject and there are many great ideas about how it works. But the fact of the matter is that there is no one theory that can give you all the answers for how to build (or to save) a solid economy. Trickle down is bullshit and it only took us 20 years to realize that. Welfare states don't really work so great either, or do they? They don't work well by our system of judging things where the only factor considered is GDP. Maybe the fact that they're happier tells us something. The whole idea of letting the market do what it wants because that's always in everyone's best interest, is bullshit. However, the perfect economy has never been established. All I'm trying to say is that I am mad about the bailouts but I feel that they probably are the best solution to the problem at this time. I also support the salary cap because it's FAIR. It is fair because being a CEO is the only job on the planet where you get a huge salary even when you fuck up. This is Obama's attempt at preventing an endless shower of golden parachutes. I support it. The CEO's shouldn't be able to keep their incredible salaries after what they did to us and I firmly believe that this is perfectly fair.

What it all comes down to for me is that it's time for an economic paradigm shift. It's time to ditch Reaganomics and look for a new system. A system that is based on something more than consumerism. It's screwed up now that in order for our economy to be successful people have to buy commodities that they don't need and largely do nothing to make us happy while also creating mass amounts of waste. In economics this idea is often referred to as the paradox of thrift. The idea being that if everyone saved most of their money and bought as little as possible, the economy would tank and that most people would become unemployed and starve. Consumerism is the base of our economy. When the base of you economy is dependent on a unrewarding, destructive, and unproductive practice, it needs to change. Maybe we need to go the natural capitalism route. Maybe we need to create an even more service oriented economy than the one we have now. All I know is that something has to change. The metaphor I like to use for what a good solution looks like is one involving EMT's. Think of it like this, bad solutions are like just sending an EMT to an emergency situation. Good solutions are like sending an EMT and then also creating research based policies to reduce he chances of that same emergency happening again in the future.

And now I am off the box, thanks for reading,

Wyatt Jarvis

Bravo!

Far better then the bleach speeches.

i will only say this: its FANNIE MAE and FREDDIE MAC.

Forget Obama. He hasn't done Jack diddly.

Heres what he needs to do.

1. End the drug war. This may seem like just another stoner trying to get weed legal, but it's way more than that. Prohibition causes way more harm than good. It's been proven. When prohibition ends there will be more jobs, higher literacy, less crime, 70+ billion of tax revenue, and an end to the cartels that are killing thousands of people every year (2000 people dead in Mexico from drug violence already, about the same amount of people that died in 9/11....) 

2.End the fed. The Federal reserve has enabled this huge credit bubble to occur (by creating too much credit and making it too easy to access) Return to a real money standard (copper/silver/gold).

3.Stop bailing out companies. We can't afford it.

4.Stop promising universal health care. We can't afford it, and it would be impossible to apply.

5.Get rid of the CIA, NSA, IRS, FCC, FDA, etc..... All of these organizations were not enumerated in the constitution and are only violating our rights and running up the debt.

6.Abolish the income tax. The income tax was not properly ratified. Many states violated their own state laws to pass it, many states read incorrect forms of the bill, and there are numerous other constitutional technicalities that make the income tax illegal.

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" The Income tax is not uniform. Different people pay different amounts of tax. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Besides, we don't need the income tax....if we stop being the world police and spending billion where we need not spend billions.

7.Let the free-market take over. The free-market is awesome. But it has never been allowed to propser in the united states. Despite what everyone will tell you Monopolies will not take over and society will not crumble. Read some economics.

8.End the Iraq war, end the war on terror, recall all of our troops. We don't need to be policing the world. Our army is not here to protect us from terror it's here to protect us from invading forces and nations. Let the rest of the world sort out their problems.

/rant.

Forget Obama. He hasn't done Jack diddly.

Heres what he needs to do.

1. End the drug war. This may seem like just another stoner trying to get weed legal, but it's way more than that. Prohibition causes way more harm than good. It's been proven. When prohibition ends there will be more jobs, higher literacy, less crime, 70+ billion of tax revenue, and an end to the cartels that are killing thousands of people every year (2000 people dead in Mexico so far this year from drug violence already (2008: 6500 deaths)..... about the same amount of people that died in 9/11....) 

2.End the fed. The Federal reserve has enabled this huge credit bubble to occur (by creating too much credit and making it too easy to access) Return to a real money standard (copper/silver/gold).

3.Stop bailing out companies. We can't afford it.

4.Stop promising universal health care. We can't afford it, and it would be impossible to apply.

5.Get rid of the CIA, NSA, IRS, FCC, FDA, etc..... All of these organizations were not enumerated in the constitution and are only violating our rights and running up the debt.

6.Abolish the income tax. The income tax was not properly ratified. Many states violated their own state laws to pass it, many states read incorrect forms of the bill, and there are numerous other constitutional technicalities that make the income tax illegal.

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises [ . . . ] but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" The Income tax is not uniform. Different people pay different amounts of tax. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Besides, we don't need the income tax....if we stop being the world police and spending billions where we need not spend billions.

7.Let the free-market take over. The free-market is awesome. But it has never been allowed to propser in the united states. Despite what everyone will tell you Monopolies will not take over and society will not crumble. Read some economics.

8.End the Iraq war, end the war on terror, recall all of our troops. We don't need to be policing the world. Our army is not here to protect us from terror it's here to protect us from invading forces and nations. Let the rest of the world sort out their problems.

/rant.