Our president, not many threads about him.

[DJ Wings]

I'll just leave this here.

[TankerBell]

Our president, not many threads about him.

We have better things to do.

[Mighty Mouse]

@pgg . . . that's my style. Give the politicos enough line, and they'll eventually use it to hang themselves. There is nothing that can be done unless the nation realizes we are on the wrong track. Kinda like voting Republican in NYC. Nice gesture, but useless.

It seems like 00E and stiff have bought "fixing this will take years" line. Look, it WILL take time to fix, but there should at least be signs that we are on the way to recovery. Besides spending dollars like they grow on trees, name one thing that Obama has done that has shown any sign of being the first step to fixing this. Just as we can agree it's a good step for an alcoholic to stop drinking as the first step, where is the similar step for the economy that Obama has taken us to?

[stiffler]

Patience is not an American virtue. Quite the opposite: Impatience is counted a strength, something that pushes us to demand that even the most pressing problem be solved immediately, if not sooner.

"What's taking so long?" might serve as a national mantra.

Nowhere is this demand for an answer yesterday to today's problems more starkly evident than in complaints that President Obama still hasn't cured the worst economic collapse in almost 70 years -- and him in the White House for two whole months already.

"What's taking so long?"

Much of the griping comes from Republicans, which is as understandable as it is predictable. It's their proper role as the loyal (now and then) opposition. But much also comes from elements in business, academia and the press who've spent the past 30 years demanding the federal government keep its hands off the economy.

No longer. They want action. When do they want it? Now! The free-market fundamentalists at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page even have decided that responsibility for the economic plunge lies not at all with the Bush administration but with -- you guessed it -- Obama. And he hasn't cured it yet.

"What's taking so long?"

In truth, the impatience stems as much from the changing nature of how news is reported and received as it does from any political or ideological bias. The 24/7 drumbeat of news and opinion on cable television promotes impatience about the crisis and the need for a cure, with always the same bottom line question:

"What's taking so long?"

Seems only yesterday the president's critics were hard-wired to a see a different kind of failing -- that Obama was rushing the country into a massive, no-strings-attached bank bailout. (Actually, that began on George W. Bush's watch, but who's keeping score?)

This tendency to rush to judgment is nothing new in our politics. At the end of the 1970s, the country suffered from runaway inflation and economic stagnation, Iranian revolutionaries took our embassy employees hostage and the Soviet Union was on the march in Afghanistan. National confidence was in the pits.

Actually, the stage was set for one of the great recoveries in the country's history but, in our impatience, we never noticed.

Within a few years, the economy soared and ignited a two-decade boom; the internet era was at hand; globalism was launched, the Soviet Union collapsed and capitalism came to China.

No one would sanely predict a similarly swift rebound from our current economic misery. But there are some signs of modest improvement. Banks are lending, though cautiously. Housing construction saw a bit of an uptick last month. Even the sickly stock market has stabilized, at least for the moment.

The delay in unraveling the bank mess is a special sore spot for Obama's critics. But it took years to erect the rotting edifice of securitized subprime mortgages and exotic, little-understood derivatives (e.g. credit default swaps) that brought the banks to grief. And it will take time to calculate their value -- or lack thereof -- and the degree of help the banks will finally need.

If there's no measurable improvement in the economy by, say, the fall, it will, indeed, be Obama's economy and critics then can justifiably ask, "What's taking so long?"

Until then, however, "What's the rush?" seems more appropriate.

[Mighty Mouse]

^ Obviously a quote. It'd be nice to see the source. Also, note that they said two months into the administration. It's now been 10. Any progress? You might also want to update the quote with continuing degradation of support from the Independents, who were key to getting Obama elected, not to mention the voting youth, who are increasingly indifferent to Obama's politicking, as evidenced by this year's election results. It's not just the Republicans kiddies. Everybody promises you the moon to get elected, but let's at least see some signs of progress before we continue. Any signs, or are we acting on blind faith?

[jedirieb]

Stiff, you really don't get it. We're not asking for the problem to be solved by now. We're asking for action, for something to be done to push us along the right road. Obama promised an end to this depression... where is it? When will he make good on his promise and get started? I didn't say finish, I said get started with the recovery, in such a way that it is not just a waste of money.

Much of the griping comes from Republicans, which is as understandable as it is predictable. It's their proper role as the loyal (now and then) opposition. But much also comes from elements in business, academia and the press who've spent the past 30 years demanding the federal government keep its hands off the economy.

This made me laugh. Obama's entire platform was built around the idea of change and a fixed economy. Since he was voted into office, I think it is only right that we expect him to keep his word and get involved in the economy, as he said he would. Yes, he's kept good on his promise for change... we're now much farther in debt with very little to show for it.

On a side note, I'm 17 and will register as an Independent when I turn 18. Its not Republicans vs Democratic president, its people vs a bad president.

Until then, however, "What's the rush?" seems more appropriate.

As I previously stated, he promised to fix this. He isn't doing anything to put us in the right direction towards recovery. While he's been twiddling his thumbs, people have continued to be laid off from their jobs. In the past year, both of my parents have been laid off from work, my dad more than once. It makes me mad that the average person suffers through these times, yet Obama sits in his comfy chair and does nothing to help, despite his promises.

Here's a question for you Stiff. Why can't they start improvement now?

[Rogue]

I don't buy this, "But the Democratic party was desperate for a superstar, so they plucked their superstar from the vine before he was completely ready for the national spotlight."

Anyone remember who the odds on favorite was to represent the Democrats? Plucked, no. You at least have to give him some credit for creating his own stardom. Palin was plucked.

I have to giggle when I read or listen to a Republican bark about Obama. Why? Here's something I've noticed over the past few months. Democratic citizens are more apt to blast their own party than a citizen who ascribes themselves to the Republican party. There's even evidence of this claim on this forum, though I believe most of my evidence resides in The Dungeon.

Comparing apple to apples there are more Democrats capable of using commonsense when compared to their Republican counterparts. Of course there are nut bags in both parties but the Republican party houses the overwhelming majority of walnuts.

I do think there are some Obama successes. Here's a couple off the top of my head:
Aborting the stem cell restrictions. (Heh, I kill me)
Expanding hate crime laws to include sexual orientation.
Increased access to loans for small business.
The investments in alternative energy.
Cash for clunkers: I remember reading that the nation's fuel economy actually went up. Have to look it up.

A wait and see success will be the investment in infrastructure.

Conversely, taking too much credit for the gains on Wall Street when anyone outside of Wall Street isn't feeling the effects is a negative. Just look at unemployment claims.

I think one really brushed aside success is Obama's popularity abroad.

[00E]

^ Amen

[Mighty Mouse]

^ Agreed on all of the above. I've had difficulties "accessing loans for small business" for my company. The banks are either squeezing the current line of credit, or require mountains of documentation despite years of doing business with them (10+ years) if I want to secure any loans. Please provide either anecdotal evidence or stats to back up the "increased access to loans."

Investments in alternative energy was also made in the Bush administration. Let's see some numbers and data that shows true initiative to effect the same.
Bush's State of the Union address:
"Tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22 percent increase in clean energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas," Bush said. "To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission, coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.

"We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks,or switch grass." (Domestic points)

To produce the technicians that might bolster such energy research, Bush also called for a federal education initiative "to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years."

"This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources."

All I've heard of C4C was that the dealers had problems getting the credit. I don't know how much credit was given out, if this study is correct, I'm not sure billions of taxpayer dollars was worth it:

A study by researchers at the University of Michigan evaluated the effects of the program on the average fuel economy considering a baseline without the existence of the program, since there was already a trend for buying vehicles with higher fuel economy due to the high gasoline prices of 2007 and 2008, and the economic crisis of 2008. The study found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.6 mpg in July 2009 and by 0.7 mpg in August 2009, as summarized in the following table:

Predicted fuel economy of all purchased new light-duty vehicles without the program and the actual fuel economy in July and August 2009.
Month Predicted baseline fuel economy wo program (mpg) Actual fuel economy with (mpg) Overall improvement in fuel economy
July 2009 21.55 22.11 0.6
Aug 2009 21.67 22.39 0.7

[Rogue]

You see cash for clunkers as an abject failure. Correction, not you, economists see it as an abject failure. I see it as the price we're paying to change an industry which will in the future benefit us all.

I'm often annoyed when a discussion about a service man or woman getting aced in combat ends with, "...well that's the price we pay for freedom, when contrarily if this freedom hits you in the wallet we say, "eff that." Ford just posted 1 billion in earnings due to its fuel efficient car line. Programs such as cash for clunkers had no impact?


Obama has opened doors for small business. You can Google, I don't need to do it for you.

At any rate, I've a hard time listening to an economist these days. Where were they warning us all about hedge funds? There were few. Economists too dine on the flavor of the month such as hedge funds and where are we now?

I believe some of Obama's plans will be looked back on in the future as heady. Let's wait and see.

Mighty Mouse, as usual I read one line of your post and decided I'd rather light my balls on fire, yah friggin racist bore.

Source: http://www.energy.gov/news2009/8216.htm