TNstepsout
Posts: 1558
Joined: 8/3/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
quote:
ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
I've got no problem disagreeing with Obama's policies if I do indeed disagree with them. The problem I have is that most of the criticism I read has little to do with his actual policies and a lot to do with assumptions about his policies. It's somewhat like criticizing a movie when you haven't seen it. Most of these people have not even read or researched the finer details of the things they are criticizing. When that happens there's not much point in discussing it.
Also, the point made was that a lot of people are blaming everything from drops in the stock market to global warming on Obama, when it's ridiculous to do so since he hasn't even been in office 60 days yet. Those same people who would blame a man who hasn't been in charge for two months yet, would likely not give him credit for the good things. THAT'S IRRATIONAL!
No more irrational than arguing with someone on the basis of what you think they're likely to say though, is it? In fact, probably less so....
quote:
ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
If anyone wants to have a rational, logical discussion of his policies that doesn't break down into finger pointing and blame and partisan politics, I'm all for it. Unfortunately I've not yet run across anyone who is anti-Obama who seems capable of rational discussion.
Go for it. What do you disagree with?
It's puzzling you would say that immediately after 4 posts by Merc, who has produced volumes upon volumes of rational discussion on that very issue - a fair sampling of which you had to scroll past just to post your observation that you've yet to run across anyone who presents such arguments. If you missed all that, it makes me a lot less inclined to spend a lot of time on an answer, so I'll keep it brief.
Two things, basically. One, I have serious problems with his budget. It projects, and its revenue and deficit forecasts depend upon, an economic growth well beyond the range that any economist outside the White House believes is credible. The median forecast of economists calls for a contraction in GDP of 2% this year and growth of 1.8% next year, but his budget assumes - and depends upon - a contraction of (if I recall correctly) 1.2% this year and a growth next year of 3.2%. That's a huge disparity, and if he's wrong - which seems likely - that means the deficit he's built into the budget will be literally staggering. Or, even more so than it already is. In which case, it calls into question the wisdom of some of his spending choices. I'm in agreement with most of his priorities - well, actually, just about all of them - but am troubled that he's not addressing them in an objective manner. It's not that I mind what he's spending money on, or even necessarily that I mind how much he's spending - it's that if he isn't being realistic about how much he has available to spend, the whole plan is meaningless at best and dangerous at worst. It's a house of cards, and I have problems with that.
Second, as I've said many times (in this thread, as well as others), his lack of attention to the banking crisis is critically important. There are as much as $10 trillion in so-called bad debt either on the books of the nation's banks, or about to be forced back onto the books by regulators - a sum that would literally cripple the banking system. And as of yet, almost 2 months into his administration, he has offered no details whatsoever on how he plans to deal with that problem. Until he does, it will be impossible to stabilize the stock market, because nobody has any reliable way to evaluate what any financial stock is worth, and the values of all other stocks are dependent upon what the financial stocks are worth. The longer he waits to solve that problem, or at least give people some sense of how he's going to solve it, the more damage is done to the economy because it undermines investor confidence and promotes an environment of uncertainty and volatility. An economic crisis, especially one of this magnitude, has as much of a psychological componenet to it as it does a financial component, and his lack of action on such a critical issue - combined with his constant fearmongering and blaming of the previous administration, as he did again yesterday - is making things worse than they need to be, which puts the economy deeper into the hole and makes it that much more difficult to climb out of.
And that's it, in a nutshell. Once again. My point. You either find it rational or you don't, but I would like to point out that I have yet to see anyone who disagrees with it offer a rational counterargument. I've seen a lot of sniping at it, a lot of irrelevant criticism, a lot of cheap shots that suggest pretty strongly that the people who don't like it don't like it just because it's not what they want to hear, but I have yet to see any rational disagreement. All I've seen from Obama apologists (and frankly, that''s the only term that applies, because that seems to be their only reason for posting) is the same irrational, unreasoned, and largely uninformed sound bites you accuse people like me and Merc of posting.
And honestly, it's pretty much all I expect to see in response to this one, as well. I can't tell you how disappointed I've become in most of my fellow liberals over the last few weeks, and how frankly embarrassed for some of them. With a few exceptions, all I've seen is a mirror image of the debates I watched here for the last 8 years - the only difference is that now it's the liberals making the same dogmatic, party-line arguments for which they railed against the conservatives for 8 years. I'd really hoped for better, although I have to admit now that I don't know on what basis. Perhaps I was naive.
Well those are pretty good arguments. However I still think it's too soon to assume those things won't be addressed in some form or fashion. If we were years down the road and people had pointed out to him that he needed to address these issues and he continued to ignore them, then I'd say he'd failed. But it's just too soon to know. Not to mention that the banking issue and the value of assets is tangled up in the over all economy and the freefall of the housing market. How can anyone price bad assets when they continue to tumble? So stopping or slowing the tumble will begin to create a bottom from which to begin evaluating these assets. So which should come first? The stimulus bill and the bill to aid homeowners facing foreclosure was designed to stimulate the economy over all and halt the slide of home values. Will it work? I'm not sure, but again, it's too soon to tell.
In terms of the growth forecast, it's quite possible it will be less than estimated, but where did these numbers come from? Economists never seem to agree and they all come up with different numbers and different projections for things. It's also possible that since the economy has contracted so severely that there will be growth next year. Who's to say.
The problem is I can't really fault the idea of the stimulus bill on general principles because I believe without it, we would face a long and potentially devastating recession and possibly a depression. In the 1930's the government was criticized for not acting quickly and decisively. It is pretty well accepted that the government MUST act in these situations and cannot allow things to take their own course. So although I might HATE all the extra spending, I can't blame Obama for doing it, because there really isn't any choice. He inherited a burning house, what else was he supposed to do?
Call me an apologist if you will, but all I'm saying is that it's too soon to tell if his policies will bear fruit or prove to be failures and that he's being criticized for taking steps he HAD to.
|
RE: A positive day on the markets - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread