Obama says economic stimulus bill vital to avoid 'catastrophe'
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
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 3 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
49 Comments
Login to comment
0
yabits
I watched the session live on C-Span. Obama did not use a teleprompter and was persuasive as well as extremely articulate. He really connected with the crown, even though acknowledging that a lot of folks in the room may not have supported him or agree with him. He showed his class in standing up for the woman who asked the question that got her some boos.
Most eye-opening was Obama's claim that 90% of the jobs that would be created under his stimulus plan would be in the private sector.
0
Sarge
This boondoggle will belong to the Democrats.
0
SushiSake3
Unreal...the same bunch of Republican party cowboys that spent 8 long years creating this fiscal nightmare by rubber-stamping every single Bush spending bill the former president put in fron of them, are now doing everything they can to STOP a solution being passed, no matter how imperfect it may be.
Even worse, is that now that they have been whumped in two straight elections - in part for out-of-control spending on areas that were not priorities - the same Republican party is now preaching fiscal responsibility.
You gotta wonder sometimes.....the Republican party is going to be out of power for a long time. People are not going to forget their blocking of this stimulius package for a while..
0
SushiSake3
I think most Americans are intelligent enough to realize the Republicans are primarily responsiblie for fiscal disaster.
Seems like even Sarge is against trying to fix the problem that his support helped create.
What kind of 'American' is that?
0
adaydream
Did you hear/see the townhall meeting in Elkhart, Ind this morning and the news conference tonight? Barack Obama actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
It's refreshing to listen to a president who knows what he talks about.
I also liked that he said, if someone committed a crime, he has to do the time no matter who they are, to paraphrase it. So Nancy Pelosi stop putting the squelch on investigations. < :-)
0
Molenir
Someone has to. The democrats certainly don't want anything to do with fiscal responsibility. Seems Republicans have finally started to remember why they were elected in the first place. It sure as hell wasn't to start acting like Democrats. Thats why Dems are in power now. People said, well we have a choice. We can elect Republicans who act like Democrats, or we can elect real Democrats. They chose the genuine article. Of course they should be aware, that whats being done won't do a damn thing but aggravate an already bad situation.
0
SushiSake3
**Here's what Americans are going to remember for a very long time - **
When Bush and co. were spending like there was no tomorrow from 2000-2008 and helped create the current fiscal nightmare we are seeing today, what did Republicans like Sarge do ?
.....NOTHING.
And when the new president came into power and put forward a plan, however imperfect it may be, to stimulate the economy, what did Republicans like Sarge do ?
.....NOTHING.
That's right folks, when America was getting into this problem, Republicans like Sarge did nothing, and now in their nation's hour of greatest need, the same people are sitting on their hands and trying to block progress..again.
It's almost surreal.
0
Molenir
Key word there was sounded like. As in he sounds like he knows what he's doing, unfortunately what he said throws all that into doubt. Going around saying that more "Government is the solution" to everything. Is not indicative of a man who knows what he's talking about. Talking about nationalizing banks is likewise not the solution. Suggesting we pass a pork fill spending bill that will do little to nothing to address the real problems of the economy is likewise not a good indication of knowing what he's talking about. So far, all I've seen Obama demonstrate, is slick speaking skills, and very poor leadership skills.
0
SushiSake3
Molenair, do you think the private sector is responsible enough to pull us out of this mess?
I don't. The bankers and other lenders, coupled with lax Bush Administration financial regulations have crippled not just the U.S. but the global economy.
0
SushiSake3
The GOP has lost all the credibility it never had with regard to prudent financial management.
Thinking the GOP is the answer now is beyond the ridiculous.
0
30061015
The 'catastrophe' is spending more than we can ever pay back. If the US was an individual, what would Uncle Sam's credit rating be.. ZER0? If the US is even able to survive bankruptcy, the interest alone on the national debt will be far worse because of the "stimulus plan" when obama is out of office than today. This is the 'catastrophe'. America will become an economic basket case like Zimbabwe.
0
Molenir
I think that if the government reduces taxes and regulations, then yes, the private sector will pull the economy out of the mess its in. Its worked that way in the past. Alternatively, whenever governments have tried to spend their way out of a recession, its been show repeatedly not to work. To put it another way. The private sector can spend their money more efficiently and more effectively then the government can.
0
adaydream
The GOP lost all creditability a very long time ago. You know how the republicans are always tauting Ronald Reagan? Always talking about his conservatism like his presidency was so great.
Then george bush's daddy was running for president. Remember "No New Taxes" and as soon as he was elected he signed the largest tax increase in decades. Because Ronald Reagan had run the country into the gutter.
So bush and Reagan had virtually the same kind of presidencies. Drug our financial-ass into a hole. And just like then, someone had to come in and correct what had been done the last 8 years.
The GOP is scary and financially innept. < :-)
0
adaydream
Tax breaks to no end and allow the markets and money shakers do exactly what they want.
That's exactly what Wall Street had the last 8 years and we see what we have. You apparently haven't had your eyes open these past 8 years < :-)
0
HeathenCabin
Obama cannot fix this mess, only make it worse while increasing job losses and destroying wealth/capital/jobs. Now people think that this money/resources are readily available, when it is not. The government can only redirect, take, or outright theft, the limited resources that the markets do have right now- and then gives that to some government scheme to "fix" the problem which in reality, and long term, creates even more problems. as 3006 has already said, the 'catastrophe' is literally the government, the government spending, and all the government intervention in the markets for the past 70 or more years.
Now Obama, and every other bureaucrat thinks that they-the government- need to re inflate a bubble. But this bubble was an expansion of credit through monetary manipulation, the real problem. When a normal "bubble" collapses, it is called a recession/depression-the cure. But the more the government prevents this(70 years of screwing things up at the least) the worse things get- and eventually the entire monetary system will collapse, taking all the malinvestments with it.
This is not just a republican problem, it is both parties problems.
0
likeitis
Are you sure that what you saw was actually not just very finely honed balking skills on behalf of those who are supposed to follow? Trying to lead a donkey can be troublesome. I can't even imagine trying to lead an elephant.
0
skipthesong
man, this is getting out of hand. The dems can pass this bill without the repubs at all. What the strategy here is that once the repubs sign on to it, and if the bill fails, which it seems as though it is setup that way, they simply lose the last part of the their base, and that is what the dems want.
Pass the damn thing already.
0
skipthesong
That's exactly what Wall Street had the last 8 years and we see what we have. You apparently haven't had your eyes open these past 8 years" considering that the main person in charge of overseeing all this was appointed in 95!
0
GJDailleult
This stimulus bill is just a sideshow, spending a lot of Chinese and Japanese money won't address the real problem. That can only happen by fixing the banking system, and that won't happen because it is too ideologically impure. Protecting American economic mythology is obviously much more important than protecting the American future.
0
Molenir
A good leader, should be able to lead, even when others don't want to be lead. The relationship between Obama and Pelosi is an interesting dynamic, but more then anything else, thus far it demonstrates the poor leadership ability of Obama. While its still early days yet, and I don't doubt that the cracks and such will be papered over quickly to preserve the image that Democrats want to present, its an interesting thing to observe even still.
I'll say it again, the only thing I've seen Obama demonstrate, is that he is a good speaker, but a poor leader. Things may change. He has 4 years to improve. While I may disagree with his positions, I hope he improves for the sake of the country, if not his party.
0
Molenir
Banking industry wasn't really broken. It had some problems that needed to be addressed, but the way they went about it, with Tarp, instead of solving the problems, only made them much, much worse, as investors rather then being reassured by the governments involvement, were panicked by it. The government doesn't exactly have the best track record, essentially wiping out investors in the companies it "saved".
This new "Stimulus" is unfortunately only going to make things worse.
0
skipthesong
would all of you please listen to molenir!
0
wuzzademcrat
Taking the corrupt Chicago model nationwide.Creating a permanent Dem majority.
No wonder Daley and Obama's crony buds back in Illinois refuse to disclose any info on all the pork comin their way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGafMHsV4Ug&feature=email
0
yabits
LOL! That's only because Obama is not leading in the direction you think he should. The direction you folks -- the GOP -- led us into was disasterous. And you want Obama to keep going in that direction??!!
0
yabits
The fallacy behind this statement is that, if you have any optimism towards the United States at all, it grossly underestimates the future wealth-creating capacity of the nation. The greatest debt load (as a percentage of GDP) that the US ever took on was during WWII. And it was just as recently as 2000 that US was in a position where the Fed Chairman was warning about the dangers of paying off the national debt too quickly.
Well, we can see the fallacy here. The US is not an individual. Individuals don't live for over 200 years and have nearly limitless wealth-producing capability. What "horse" out there is a better bet than the United States of America?
0
HeathenCabin
The United States of America cannot produce wealth, it is actually those "individuals" that produce wealth within it, if they were allowed to. So what you quote that are fallacies actually are not, yet what you state actually is a fallacy.
Obama cannot fix this mess, only make it worse while increasing job losses and destroying wealth/capital/jobs. Now people think that this money/resources are readily available, when it is not. The government can only redirect, take, or outright theft, the limited resources that the markets do have right now- and then gives that to some government scheme to "fix" the problem which in reality, and long term, creates even more problems. as 3006 has already said, the 'catastrophe' is literally the government, the government spending, and all the government intervention in the markets for the past 70 or more years.
Now Obama, and every other bureaucrat thinks that they-the government- need to re inflate a bubble. But this bubble was an expansion of credit through monetary manipulation, the real problem. When a normal "bubble" collapses, it is called a recession/depression-the cure. But the more the government prevents this(70 years of screwing things up at the least) the worse things get- and eventually the entire monetary system will collapse, taking all the malinvestments with it.
0
adaydream
It would be a total catastrophe to the republicans if this package succeeds. They started this mess, don't want it fixed by a democrat, and they think that more tax breaks and less control of the stock market will make them happy. It won't work, but they want it.
The republicans had 8 years to do something to correct this problem and all they did was to make it worse. They started out with a surplus, gave away $4trillion and started a war.
Now Barack Obama has to find some way to fix it. If Barack Obama fixes the current problem or at least starts a reversal of the damage, he'll get re-elected in 4 years. OH GAWD, not that. < :-)
0
SushiSake3
I think one of the strangest aspects of this whole mess is that we are seeing bankrupt Bill (America) asking bankrupt Taro (Japan) 'Can you lend me a dime?'
I'm not sure whether China is liquid or not, but if they aren't, then I think all we are seeing is these governments playing Monopoly with fantasy money and IOU's, when there is really no real money there in the first place.
Does anyone have any alternative views?
0
yabits
This statement can be proven wrong with a bit of examination. No individual emerges from the womb ready to produce wealth. One of the greatest individual contributors who ever lived, Isaac Newton, once said that if it appeared he saw farther than others, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. I'll return to these "giants" in a bit.
In an area of land that is devoted to raising a crop -- say, corn for example, the wealth-producing capability is something that an individual may contribute to, but by no means is it the only, or even most important factor. The climate and the natural fertility of the land are two obvious factors that man has little control over. (Yes, man can apply artificial-chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but these have some serious negative long term impacts as anyone who has read about the massive "dead zone" off the coast of Louisiana can attest.)
No one can argue that the government programs to provide statistical analysis to farmers and agribusinesses on weather and market conditions, as well as infrastructure to build roads, electification, flood control, and a host of other contributions, have not made US farms among the world's most productive.
The "giants" that any individual stands on are the contributions of those who came before, especially the work done through basic research. Left to private individuals and corporations, very little basic research would ever get done, because the payoff period is just too long. Some of the personal giants in my life came about as the result of a government program to recruit and train the best math and science teachers in my state's high schools.
To say that a government can do nothing to enhance the wealth-producing capacity of a nation is to live in fantasyland. To assert that government can only destroy is delusional. We live under a debt of gratitude to those who came before us, that can only be repaid by making things better for those who will come after.
0
SushiSake3
Yabits, it sounds like you have been reading the Celestine Prophecy. :-)
Good stuff.
0
yabits
SushiSake3, actually it's Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered."
0
wuzzademcrat
The government can't pick winners - in the automotive industry, in IT, in energy, in biotech, in pretty much any field.
Winners emerge when free markets are allowed to develop, and we all benefit. Too many libs and "progressives" , with their primitive world view where people can only be victims or "oppressors",still hold the zero sum attitude
The porkulus is Obama and Pelosi's payoff to their loyalists.
0
HeathenCabin
To say that a government can do nothing to enhance the wealth-producing capacity of a nation is to live in fantasyland. To assert that government can only destroy is delusional. We live under a debt of gratitude to those who came before us, that can only be repaid by making things better for those who will come after.
All of this is a fallacy- again you fail to realize that farming advances are done for the reasons of the individual, and the payoffs are benefiting society from the sacrifices of the individual(in this case producing more crops/foodstuffs to satisfy the society). Becoming efficient, in order to produce more to meet the satisfaction of the market. It only benefits everyone in the end- but most only look at the short term effects while never realizing the long term effects.
Without the individuals, and businesses, continuously striving for efficiency/gains/advances for human satisfaction of wants is what actually causes "basic research." You just do not see it, as all of the "basic research and gains" actually does come from the individuals/businesses for human satisfaction. All of the gains are from private individuals/businesses in some way or another you just never see the connection(the need for efficient travel->wheels=>sailing ships/carriages=>steam engines, and so on and so on, government did not invent nor create these things-and it is only 1 example at that!!!!).
Now, I never said a government can do nothing to enhance the wealth of the individuals within the nation. Government does only destroy, or reduce, or steal, or redistribute as it is government nature and is not delusional. Some real life examples- Nazis and Hitler, Stalin and the USSR, even the United States of America even. It happens through all the government wars, or central planning, manipulation, and again etc. as the list can be endless. You talk of making this better, but in reality it is all human action that leads to "making things better" fulfilling the satisfaction of that human desire/action-that in turn leads to wealth, efficiency, and the list goes on.
0
wuzzademcrat
"Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered."
Groovy stuff, man. I got my first copy when I was 16.
0
HeathenCabin
Groovy stuff, man. I got my first copy when I was 16.
I have never heard of this- but searches make it out to be some type of environmentalist economic thought...
0
30061015
All markets depend on consumer confidence and projected earnings. The US has the lowest savings rate of any industrial nation. "Wealth creation" has been the myth of endless home equity lines of credit to refinance everything under the sun, including Wall Street. Any new "wealth creation" (debt driven froth) is no match for the fundamental systemic rot in banking, decades of Wall Street scamongering, the mortgage meltdown and credit crisis, dollar devaluation and job destruction, as the tsunami eventually sucks bankrupt nations out to sea.
0
yabits
To use a modern example, are you saying that governments have had no involvement in space travel? That everything done in going to the moon was all done in order to satisfy market needs? How about the Internet? That started out as a government project to connect computers together, completely funded by the government in the 1960s.
One can go back in history and see that, in order to make his way to the New World, one of the first things Columbus had to do was to seek a government handout.
It is you who simply don't know any better. Most basic research is done for the sake of pure knowledge, and a lot of the stuff that comes out of it individuals may not know how to apply for decades, if ever. Individuals and business work on much shorter time horizons and expect a more specific and definite return.
0
yabits
And what kind of confidence can be built on economic practices that are not sustainable and ultimately self-destructive? If we could turn back the clock, what part of the cycle of self-delusion that has led us to the edge of catastrophe would we like to return to?
Just because wealth creation has been plied into myths does not mean that wealth creation itself is a myth. It requires an examination into the fundamental facts of nature and of the human condition.
0
HeathenCabin
One can go back in history and see that, in order to make his way to the New World, one of the first things Columbus had to do was to seek a government handout.
t is you who simply don't know any better. Most basic research is done for the sake of pure knowledge, and a lot of the stuff that comes out of it individuals may not know how to apply for decades, if ever. Individuals and business work on much shorter time horizons and expect a more specific and definite return.
It is you, yes you yabits who does not know any better. You cannot see that all the funding and research, the sacrifices, came from the private markets in order to let the government succeed in going to the moon. The redirection/theft and destruction/reduction of available resources/capital/wealth/education funded it all, and it all came from the "private markets," or you know, the people who produce everything based on the want to be satisfied.
Columbus seeking a government handout- guess what again, it was funded by the individuals who are successful who pay taxes/were robbed to the government in its many different forms, even back then. Yes, you cannot see that the GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT STEALING IT FROM THE PRIVATE SOURCES/INDIVIDUALS/BUSINESSES. You only see the effect of government theft from other parts of the economy at the time, without realizing what might have been.
You think that government is good, that all advancements come from government, without even realizing that all the resources, all the wealth, has actually and will forever be the reason for success and failure of whatever you state the government needs/succeeds in doing. It is you who is delusional-
0
yabits
I am glad you agree that it was the government that redirected funds to stimulate space exploration.
Now, any knowledge and advancements -- things that would not have been possible without the government redirection -- that end up getting turned into valuable materials and products will have that original government redirection to thank for it.
As long as there is more than one individual on this planet, there will be government. Good or bad, it's a reality. I believe government can be made good, especially when it acts to prevent or limit the destructiveness of individuals who are only out for themselves and give no thought to impact of their actions.
No. I never said something so absolutist. It appears to be you who has taken the absolute position that no advancement has ever come from the actions taken by government.
0
yabits
The Senate just passed the stimulus package. Three Republican "mavericks," and not John McCain, voted with the Democrats and Independents.
0
Good_Jorb
Yes, by applying for intellectual rights from government funded organizations, using binding contracts that are legally enforceable in a government funded court of law, transporting thier goods on government paid for infrastructure and relying government funded police, firefighters and utilities to keep them safe and running.
If the government hadn't given Columbus handouts, then those PRIVATE SOURCES/INDIVIDUALS/BUSINESSES would not have benefited from the wealth found in the new world. It would be doubtful that any private individual would fund Columbus's expediation give the risk, size and if government didn't exist lack of enforceable contract law.
0
ca1ic0cat
I'm not sure that the horse hasn't already bolted the barn but I wish Obama all the luck in the world on this one. It sucks to be unemployed and I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
I just wonder where they are going to get the money from. We're talking $1.5 trillion in spending in the last six months and that doesn't count Iraq or Afganistan. This could all result in hyperinflation if things get out of control. That would really get ugly.
0
adaydream
Barack Obama is the right leader at this time to help get us out of the place we were in because we allowed the free market to run unabated. We watched the free market go about it and watched them collapse from their creative accounting and theft.
Then we listen to posters here tell us how the market can get us back out of where we're at now. And they are so sure that their way is the right way. Well guys your side had that chance and it buckled at the knees.
Sit back now and allow the democrats to show you how it's done when your side failed. < :-)
0
Molenir
He's the right leader to lead us in the direction no one but socialists and communists want the country to go. Unfortunately he is not the person to lead on the subject of economic reform and despite being called a "Stimulus" package, its going to end up having a negative effect on the economy.
Speaking of which, has anyone else noticed, that if a budget stays the same or the increase just matches inflation, its called a cut, if a measure is going to have a negative effect, its called a "Stimulus" and something thats designed to stifle free speech is called "Fairness". In my opinion, Democrats have got their labels mixed up.
0
GJDailleult
Hey hey, that is what I was saying to my wife at the ATM outside the casino on our holiday. "I'm not really broke, I just have some problems I need to address." They are broken, and broken banking systems destroy money and wealth. Very simple stuff. As for the never-ending "all government is bad" stuff their is a very simple solution. Create a special tax waiver. In exchange for not having to pay any tax or have any dealings with the evil government, the individual agrees to make no use of any government services. Problem solved!!!
0
yabits
I have long been aware of that, but I understand that whether a budget item is a cut or not is determined by whether or not the project allocation matches the projected need.
0
wuzzademcrat
yabits: "The Senate just passed the stimulus package. Three Republican "mavericks," and not John McCain, voted with the Democrats and Independents."
Independents?
Nice try.
3 RINOs sided with a Democrat majority that couldn't produce a single dissenter to the worst piece of financial legislation since the 30s.
The porkulus is theirs. They own it - lock, stock, and barrel.
0
yabits
One of those Independents, Joe Lieberman, was prominently featured at the Republican Convention, and was even under consideration as the running mate for the party.
You can go back to praying that the stimulus package will fail.
Back to top