Obama confronts Democrats' skepticism on economic plans
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
22 Comments
Login to comment
0
Molenir
Its not just democrats that are skeptical, but economists as well. Most economists think that Obama's plan is "deeply flawed". I'm no economist, but even I could understand that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is not the way to go about stimulating the economy. And the spend your way out model has failed everytime its been tried, as Japan itself can testify.
0
Wolfpack
Obama will have created more debt in less than two years than Bush had in eight. By the time his term ends, he will have accrued more debt than the total of all debt accumulated by all previous presidents. Skepticism is definately in order. The Obama administration is a bunch keystone cops when it comes to economics. His administration still can't come up with a financial recovery plan. He is clueless. All he knows how to do is run for office. Now that he has reached the highest office he can possibly attain, he doesn't know what to do.
0
TexasAggie
Buyers' remorse is starting to set in.
Sweeeet.
0
adaydream
Wolfpack you fail to remember that bush went through $6Trillion. Obama's got a ways to go.
The country voted for Obama because they want this health care change. It's the doctors, AMA and republicans don't want the change.
I'm all for it. < :-)
0
Molenir
If Obama really wanted to stimulate the economy, he should make the Bush Tax cuts permanent, and consider cutting taxes in other areas on a short term basis. Especially corporate and capital gains taxes. That would save companies money, allowing them to retain more people, boosting profit margins, and basically providing incentives for new investment. The biggest economic stimulus.
0
skipthesong
Gee, let's see how Barney Frank, you know, head of Freddie Mack Oversight.... says... He knows too well.
0
rollonarte
Economists give Obama and his team a failing grade. Brave souls - they stand a good chance of being audited.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123671107124286261.html
0
SushiSake3
All this Republican talk of the need to be fiscally responsible, exploding deficits is too little too late.
For every Republican/Conservative above who is up in arms about President Obama's spending plans, I have a simple question - where were your objections when the previous president clocked up the biggest increase in government debt in human history?
I'll tell you where - you were hiding, too scared to speak out as you tacitly gave your blessing to your government as it added more than **$6 TRILLIOM **to your nation's debt, guranteeing that future generations of Americans will be shackled in debt.
0
SushiSake3
The Republicans are also too late to talk about fiscal responsibility.
The big spending GOP had 8 long years to exercise fiscal responsibility, and here's what they gave us:
And they talk about the Democrats spending too much?
Sorry, the GOP has now become leaderless, meaningless and more irrelevant by the day.
Right now, the GOP is letting its one last chance to regain relevance slip away. As is standard practice for the GOP, it's 'America Last,' and they prove yet again why they live up to this credo by trying to block the President's stimulus measures, which whether you agree with their implementation or not, are putting money in the pockets of Americans.
If the GOP would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Democrats to get these packages moving, they might have a chance to regain some of the relevance that was squandered in the Bush years.
They choose not to at their peril.
0
SushiSake3
Why is it just so not surprising that rollonarte, TexasAggie, Sarge, Molenir, etc. haven't answered my question???
:-)
0
rollonarte
Another withdrawal. I do believe the Obama admin has set a new record:
"Democrat sources say that H. Rodgin Cohen, a partner in the New York law firm Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, and the leading candidate for Deputy Treasury Secretary, has withdrawn from consideration. It’s the third withdrawal of a top Treasury Department staff pick in less than a week."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/03/another-top-tre.html
More bungling. Just underlines the fact, well reflected in the market, that Obama has never run anything in his privileged life but a campaign.
0
SuperLib
Well Obama's at $1.75 trillion so far. Honestly, why do you guys hammer Bush's debt so much when Obama's will increase more in a shorter amount of time? I'm an Obama supporter and for the life of me I can't understand why other Obama supporters keep bringing this up. At some point in the future the comparison of the national debt is going to bite you in the rear...which will probably make my life as an Obama supporter more difficult. Can you do the real Obama supporters a favor and not put us in this position?
0
Molenir
Yes, its always time to blame the past administration for everything. Don't worry about now, don't worry about the future, its always Bush's fault. Gee, even now that hes out of office he still gets blamed for everything.
And to answer your question, conservatives were pissed off at Bush long before. Who do you think it was who kept raising the issue? Certainly not the Dems who merely used the issue to score political points, but were more then happy to go along with all the spending. Conservatives opposed Bush. Regrettably, Republicans forgot they were supposed to be conservatives, and gave Bush and the Dems the biggest expansion of entitlement programs since Lyndon Johnson.
Getting back to the issue at hand, which is OBAMA's economic plans, and his failure to present anything that will effectively stimulate the economy, or for that matter cut the deficit. Lets see, who is it thats presenting these plans? Whose budget is this? Its not longer Bush's, this one is all on Obama.
0
adaydream
SuperLib we slam george bush so hard because Barack Obama is trying to help everybody, not just a segment of society. Most of the money that george bush gave away went to the rich. Barack Obama is helping everybody. Most of george bush's $6Trillion went to the rich, period. Barack Obama is trying to help the other 95% of the population.
What Barack Obama has spent is a drop in the bucket compared to george bush. And you republicans want to slam Obama for trying to fix what bush did. How come the republicans didn't slam bush for what he did to the economy? What Obama has spent was because bush wrecked the economy.
Yeah, but Obama will be long into his 2nd term before he get's even half way to bush's spending. < :-)
0
SuperLib
But I don't really see a difference between radical Bush supporters when he was adding to the national debt and radical Obama supporters (in reality most are just radical anti-Bush ) when Obama adds to the national debt. Aren't you ignoring Obama's debt in the same way that you're criticizing Bush supporters for ignoring his debt? And aren't Bush supporters doing the same thing?
It's like watching two guys simultaneously kick each other in the crotch over and over again. Each time you kick you're leaving yourself open....but you guys just keep kicking away. And both sides appear to think they have a winning strategy.
0
Good_Jorb
SuperLib-
Why hammer Bush's debt so much? I would think that the hammering on Bush's debt would because of the misleading statement;
Obama has yet to create 6 trillion in debt, so it's obivously not true and the statment deserves to called out. Disinformation does no one any good. Like the following;
From the article; 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60, which means that a majority of Economists surveyed(58%) gave Obama a passing grade, simple math.
If Bush's tax cuts were a stimulus, it certianly was not reflected in GDP growth. The reality of the economic crisis in America is that there a lot of people who have a lot of debt and until they pay down their debt, they are not going to spend money. Tax cuts may cause the rich to invest but the rich still require the vast majority of middle and poor class people(average Americans) to buy their goods/services to get a return on thier investments, which again requires frist that they pay off/down thier debt. Until then the govenment is going to have to spend money for them.
0
Molenir
You forgetting where that article comes from? 60 equates at D. In order to pass, you need at least a C, Obama is nowhere near the 70 required for that. Meaning, he is failing.
Such typical class warfare arguments, and so misleading too. Especially since Bush gave every single taxpayer a tax break. Not just the rich, everybody. A fact conveniently ignored by libs such as yourself. Obama on the other hand claims to be raising taxes only on the very rich. What you're failing to mention, is the corporate tax increases that will cost jobs, and hurt the economy.
0
TexasAggie
Added Obama: “If we see money being misspent, we’re going to put a stop to it.”
Just words, just speeches .....
0
adaydream
SuperLib it sounds as if you just want me to just give george bush a free pass from here on out. I should just forget how he screwed the country.
At the same time I should listen to the likes of the bush lovers and how Barack Obama is hurting the country and how george bush never did this to our great country.
Then there is SuperLib who wants to make like he's above all this.
If I didn't want this, I'd watch TV and keep my mouth shut. < :-)
0
Molenir
How about giving everyone a fair look? You would classify me as a Bush lover, despite me being one of his harshest critics. I am also a critic of Obama. The reason being the same as why I criticized Bush. I'm a conservative, they are not. This said, I try to be impartial, try to give Obama a chance. While I criticize his foreign policy, I grant that its early in his term, and they're still getting things straightened out. While I think his economic policy is a disaster, a point his own people in the White House agree with, there are some positive aspects as well.
When the man is wrong, admit it, come out and criticize him. When he's right, defend him. Don't just be all one sided.
0
SuperLib
No, I'm just wondering why you're accusing others of doing the same thing you're doing....ignoring increases to the debt. You do it for Obama, they do it for Bush. Again, if there's any difference, please let me know.
You guys have dragged the debate to such lows that it's hard to not be above it.
0
SuperLib
Yep.
Back to top