The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by flounder

I'd say at this point that it's government stimulus that has proven not to work.

I think it depends on how it's done. Tax rebates and cuts which were a huge part of the stimulus plan didn't work. People were scared, people were in debt. That money got put under a mattress (I believe the numbers showed only 10-20% of the rebates were spent).

The problem is jobs, not a $500 rebate check or 2% savings on your taxes. Not an extra couple months on your unemployment. It's having a 9-5 where you know you'll have a check coming every 2 weeks. The stimulus didn't really address this. It sort of tried to stick a finger into a leaking dam.

The money should have gone to two things. The first, massive infrastructure projects. I'm talking things that can really improve the efficiency of our country long term. Whether that's new roads, train systems, airports, dams, bridges, etc. I keep hearing about how all these things are crumbling and this would be a great time to fix it. Considering the largest group of unemployed are those without college degrees, it would produce a lot of construction jobs (which is an industry killed by the housing collapse). Now these jobs would be given out at the best rate but only to companies that hire American workers. Now what is the worst that can happen here? You're borrowing at a negative yield. At worst you end up with a bunch of nice shit you built that can last you 50-100 years. That stuff needs to be done someday.

The second is a credit to companies who hire. We try all these little incentives hoping it'll end up with companies hiring more people. Lets just cut to the chase. You get $X for every full-time American employee you hire for a year. I don't know what that amount is, and sure it might be overpaying, but if it gets companies hiring, gets people back to work and getting a paycheck, then thats great. With how inefficient we are at creating jobs, I think this would be a much more efficient way of doing it.

Enough with the "if we cut their tax rate, maybe they'll hire". How about "here is some cold hard cash if you hire". At least I know that money is going toward new employees and not to lining an execs pocket.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flounder

It may have worked 70 years ago, but the experience here and in Japan and Europe suggests that massive government stimulus just doesn't have the same effect on a modern economy.

You may be right, but it is far from "proven"

i do not think US, Japan or Europe has come even close to New Deal spending. which again, was tiny to the spending scale of ww2.

The problem is ending it and not creating a dependency on it. which may be the thing that's impossible in this day and age.

[flounder]

Well, Japan tried massive infrastructure projects and all it got them was a deficit of 180 percent of GDP and no recovery.

The Hamada Marine Bridge soars majestically over this small fishing harbor, so much larger than the squid boats anchored below that it seems out of place.

And it is not just the bridge. Two decades of generous public works spending have showered this city of 61,000 mostly graying residents with a highway, a two-lane bypass, a university, a prison, a children’s art museum, the Sun Village Hamada sports center, a bright red welcome center, a ski resort and an aquarium featuring three ring-blowing Beluga whales.

Nor is this remote port in western Japan unusual. Japan’s rural areas have been paved over and filled in with roads, dams and other big infrastructure projects, the legacy of trillions of dollars spent to lift the economy from a severe downturn caused by the bursting of a real estate bubble in the late 1980s. During those nearly two decades, Japan accumulated the largest public debt in the developed world — totaling 180 percent of its $5.5 trillion economy — while failing to generate a convincing recovery.

How many times does stimulus have to fail before we decide maybe it's time to try something different?

Edit: Something different could even be Keynesian economics where spending is cut in boom times to save money for stimulus during recessions. Right now what we're doing is running a big deficit in boom times and a huge deficit in recessions. When does all this debt ever get paid off?

[RainMaker]

Japan was a much different situation though. And some economists believe that their massive stimulus plans helped avoid a catastrophic depression. It's tough to look at how stimulus plans work with a mindset of either it producing growth or not. Sometimes they just help slow the bleeding.

I guess what I'm saying is where would Japan be if it didn't provide any stimulus. I'm pretty sure their bubble was much larger than ours.

[JPhillips]

In looking at more of Romney's plan, it's even more of a shit sandwich. Not only will the corporate rate be dropped, but the estate tax will be eliminated and interest/cap gains/dividends taxes will be reduced greatly. How will this impact the deficit you may ask? Romney has an answer. The economy will be so great we'll never notice the lower rates.

[RainMaker]

Where does Romney plan to make up for the massive revenue decrease we'll see? The GOP cares about the debt, right? Or is that only when a Democrat is in office?

[flounder]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I guess what I'm saying is where would Japan be if it didn't provide any stimulus. I'm pretty sure their bubble was much larger than ours.

There's certainly that possibility. It just seems to always be the case that every time stimulus fails to have a positive effect on an economy somewhere, there's some excuse. Maybe the reason that it keeps failing is that it's misguided in the first place.

Judging from the effect having our debt downgraded had on the markets, getting our fiscal house in order might be a better way to go (and I think that would have to include tax increases too).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by flounder

Well, Japan tried massive infrastructure projects and all it got them was a deficit of 180 percent of GDP and no recovery.



How many times does stimulus have to fail before we decide maybe it's time to try something different?

Edit: Something different could even be Keynesian economics where spending is cut in boom times to save money for stimulus during recessions. Right now what we're doing is running a big deficit in boom times and a huge deficit in recessions. When does all this debt ever get paid off?

You can't simplify Japan to stimulus or no stimulus. There were currency valuation issues and deflation. I've also read criticism that Japan's spending was done too slowly rather than as a massive shock to right the economy.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The money should have gone to two things. The first, massive infrastructure projects. I'm talking things that can really improve the efficiency of our country long term. Whether that's new roads, train systems, airports, dams, bridges, etc. I keep hearing about how all these things are crumbling and this would be a great time to fix it. Considering the largest group of unemployed are those without college degrees, it would produce a lot of construction jobs (which is an industry killed by the housing collapse). Now these jobs would be given out at the best rate but only to companies that hire American workers. Now what is the worst that can happen here? You're borrowing at a negative yield. At worst you end up with a bunch of nice shit you built that can last you 50-100 years. That stuff needs to be done someday.

That is what both saddened and outraged me about the Stimulus. It was obvious (even to me, just some jerk on a message board) that it wouldn't solve any problems created by a massive fiscal crisis. It was pet projects which yield no ROI, tax cuts for people not inclined to spend the savings, and unemployment for people who should be working.

And you're right about the sector that needs the work...its the non-college workers who mainly make up the construction sector that need to get a consistent paycheck again. We talk about investors in the stock market having "confidence" but we never really talk about the construction sector having "confidence" in their paycheck because nobody has confidence when they are collecting unemployment (or not collecting a check of any sort). This is the sort of out of touch crap that infuriates me with the Dems...which is supposed to be the party of the common man.

The second is a credit to companies who hire. We try all these little incentives hoping it'll end up with companies hiring more people. Lets just cut to the chase. You get $X for every full-time American employee you hire for a year. I don't know what that amount is, and sure it might be overpaying, but if it gets companies hiring, gets people back to work and getting a paycheck, then thats great. With how inefficient we are at creating jobs, I think this would be a much more efficient way of doing it.

Enough with the "if we cut their tax rate, maybe they'll hire". How about "here is some cold hard cash if you hire". At least I know that money is going toward new employees and not to lining an execs pocket.

I don't know about the credit to hire. I know you aren't publishing a finalized bill proposal here, but any incentive has to be tied to a net increase of employees...otherwise I can lay off an entire business unit and hire a new one and collect revenue that way. I kind of see that as throwing in the towel and begging for rich people to hire somebody...I think we can come up with better incentives that spur investment, which in turn spurs hiring.

I'm not really against the lowering of the corp tax rate to 25% itself. So long as when doing it we start closing all the loopholes in the process. I'd much rather have GE pay 25% of their profit than to have Joe's sandwich shop pay 35%...both from a practical standpoint and as a matter of general principle.

[JPhillips]

Corporate tax loopholes aren't going anywhere. The people who fund the politicians want every loophole they can get. The overall rate can go down just in case there aren't enough loopholes, but simplifying the corporate tax structure will never get past our corporate overlords.

[RainMaker]

Here is the problem. Google made $6.4 billion in profit in 2009. They paid 2.4% of that in taxes. Microsoft made 17.4 billion last year and only $445 million went to pay U.S. taxes.

Does this really effect many companies? These companies and more already have super low tax rates and it hasn't resulted in a ton of new jobs. Anytime we do cut breaks it just ends up going to bonuses it seems (see Cisco and the tax holiday). And while you can say that the execs would have to pay taxes on that, we're pushing to lower capital gains even more so they barely pay any of that.

I guess one of the problems I see is that you need a strong middle class to have a strong economy. And we keep pushing for this enormous inbalance. When a handful of people control all the money, you can't expect there to be high demand from everyone else.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the problem. Google made $6.4 billion in profit in 2009. They paid 2.4% of that in taxes. Microsoft made 17.4 billion last year and only $445 million went to pay U.S. taxes.

Does this really effect many companies? These companies and more already have super low tax rates and it hasn't resulted in a ton of new jobs. Anytime we do cut breaks it just ends up going to bonuses it seems (see Cisco and the tax holiday). And while you can say that the execs would have to pay taxes on that, we're pushing to lower capital gains even more so they barely pay any of that.

I guess one of the problems I see is that you need a strong middle class to have a strong economy. And we keep pushing for this enormous inbalance. When a handful of people control all the money, you can't expect there to be high demand from everyone else.

The flip side of that is that if you raise the taxes, the businesses take their jobs to other countries. That's the problem we face now. At one point, business wouldn't have an option. The way business is conducted has changed so much that the country needs the business MUCH more than the business needs the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not only will the corporate rate be dropped, but the estate tax will be eliminated and interest/cap gains/dividends taxes will be reduced greatly.

First positive I've heard associated with Romney in ages.

The estate tax might be one of the worst abominations ever undertaken by the federal government & one that there's no reasonable justification for (unless you consider jealousy a justification).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets just cut to the chase. You get $X for every full-time American employee you hire for a year. I don't know what that amount is, and sure it might be overpaying, but if it gets companies hiring, gets people back to work and getting a paycheck, then thats great.

Would have to be a hell of an "X" since a significant part of the problem is that many unfilled (or uncreated) jobs are a matter of simple math: Cost of employee > benefit of employee. At this point I'd have to think you're talking about subsidizing virtually entire salaries.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First positive I've heard associated with Romney in ages.

The estate tax might be one of the worst abominations ever undertaken by the federal government & one that there's no reasonable justification for (unless you consider jealousy a justification).

Well that and forcing capitol to move to keep capital from massing in a limited number of families solely due to the luck of birth.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

The flip side of that is that if you raise the taxes, the businesses take their jobs to other countries. That's the problem we face now. At one point, business wouldn't have an option. The way business is conducted has changed so much that the country needs the business MUCH more than the business needs the country.

How do you explain companies in Germany and Scandinavia?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

First positive I've heard associated with Romney in ages.

The estate tax might be one of the worst abominations ever undertaken by the federal government & one that there's no reasonable justification for (unless you consider jealousy a justification).

+1.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the problem. Google made $6.4 billion in profit in 2009. They paid 2.4% of that in taxes. Microsoft made 17.4 billion last year and only $445 million went to pay U.S. taxes.

Right. So getting them to pay 25% with no loopholes is really where we need to be so that the actual small businesses who do struggle with 35% rates can expand.

I see the loopholes as the part that Dems should be fighting to close vehemently. I see the corp tax rate as what the Repubs should be fighting to get to vehemently. If both can frame their arguments well, then there should be wide consensus to do both (and gulp...compromise).

That said...JP is probably right about the final result. I guess we're just screwed.

[RainMaker]

Small businesses are likely not paying the 35%. Most are setup as LLC or S-Corps and passing costs through.

[SteveMax58]

No, but if you actually eliminated most ways to avoid your corp costs, you'd impact these small businesses as well as the mega companies.

We need the mega companies to actually pay their share, rather than discourage small companies from trying new things. I don't want to rail on the big companies too much, as they facilitate a lot of economic activity and are the genesis of a lot of tax revenues (even if they aren't directly paying it), but whats good for GE or Google is good for Joe's sandwich shop.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do you explain companies in Germany and Scandinavia?

Don't confuse headquarters with subsidiaries and where they're incorporated.



Sydney Morning Herald says Obama will push for another $300B plan:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...#ixzz1XM2q4vCy

[JPhillips]

There's plenty of manufacturing in Germany and Scandinavia and the compensation rates are generally higher than in the US. There's also the fact that a lot of the jobs that have been lost aren't outsourcable. You can't outsource home construction or service jobs.

I don't buy the idea that the only hope for the US economy is to embrace a lower standard of living for a large portion of the population.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Would have to be a hell of an "X" since a significant part of the problem is that many unfilled (or uncreated) jobs are a matter of simple math: Cost of employee > benefit of employee. At this point I'd have to think you're talking about subsidizing virtually entire salaries.

I don't know what that number is. I'd imagine it's something that would have to be crunched by experts. But I do think there is a number that would encourage people to start hiring. If you're a software developer and you're able to get $15,000 back on hiring a $50,000 programmer, does that help you pull the trigger on the hire? Does a restaurant hire another server for their busier hours if they can get them cheaper? There would have to be a sweet spot where the credit is worthit.

When I look at what we're doing, it just seems woefully inefficient. Extending unemployment and giving these small rebates and cuts to our taxes is not doing anything. I'd rather that money go toward the actual hiring of employees. The government has been rather inefficient at creating jobs on their own money wise, so wouldn't it be better to just put an amount on a job and pay it directly to the employer? I saw a report this morning that a "weatherizing home" program in California was costing $175k per job created. Wouldn't we be better off just giving a company $25k for hiring someone?

This is also something that is done in other areas. Many states have programs in place that will give companies a large tax credit for hiring former convicts. This works too in many cases. I don't know why we couldn't do it to an extent elsewhere.

I own my own company and I can tell you that at a certain amount, I would definitely hire someone. It simply becomes too much of a value.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you're a software developer and you're able to get $15,000 back on hiring a $50,000 programmer, does that help you pull the trigger on the hire? Does a restaurant hire another server for their busier hours if they can get them cheaper? There would have to be a sweet spot where the credit is worth it.

In both cases it seems to come back to what I was trying to say: the sweet spot is wherever you make more than New Employee X costs you.

I just don't get a sense that the difference is something marginal, or even close to marginal. The problem in most industries doesn't seem to be one of "oh if only a new person were 20% cheaper then we could do this", it's more like "why the hell would I hire someone when we're barely keeping the people we have busy". You don't need to make more widgets if nobody is buying widgets, and it's a hard sell to the person asked to take the risk to convince them that it'll all come around eventually if they'll just bite the $X bullet for a while.

Increased demand solves a lot of problems, although I don't believe that a magic wand to restore all demand at a given point (whatever the low for unemployment was in the last 5 or 10 years) would bring the same jobs back. There'll be no shortage of employers who've realized that a lot of their cutbacks eliminated inefficiencies as much as anything & will be more prepared to do more with less (than before) even if demand improves.

In short, our problem really doesn't seem to be entirely one of too few jobs, it's also too damned many people (and FTR, I'm not at all referring to anything political like legals/illegals, it's far more basic than that) for the work that is profitable to do.

The government has been rather inefficient at creating jobs on their own money wise, so wouldn't it be better to just put an amount on a job and pay it directly to the employer?

That's a different question than the point I was getting at. I don't necessarily disagree with your basic point about that being a "better" option, I'd still be concerned with whether it's actually a "good" option, both practically and philosophically.

[RainMaker]

I think a lower unemployment rate fixes a lot of the demand problems. Sort of a domino effect. More people getting a weekly paycheck and the more comfortable they are going to be buying a TV, fixing their roof, or buying a new car.

You're right that it wouldn't work in a lot of areas. If you own a maid service, hiring extra maids when there aren't any jobs to send them out to is pointless. However, I think it would work well in growth areas such as R&D. Software development, pharmaceuticals, and a bunch of others would seemingly benefit from that. One of the bonuses of that would be that you're investing in growth from new technologies. So perhaps some of that snowballs into more jobs down the road.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think a lower unemployment rate fixes a lot of the demand problems. Sort of a domino effect. More people getting a weekly paycheck and the more comfortable they are going to be buying a TV, fixing their roof, or buying a new car.

One of the catches I referred to, at this point a surviving business owner is likely to say "you go first". Taking the risk once there's real signs of recovery is one thing, putting your neck closer to the chopping block to be the next business to go under is something else entirely.

Honestly, I don't see any way for any real recovery to even have a chance (*I don't believe one is coming regardless frankly) to happen until after the election one way or the other. Too much uncertainty does not an atmosphere for risk taking make.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In short, our problem really doesn't seem to be entirely one of too few jobs, it's also too damned many people (and FTR, I'm not at all referring to anything political like legals/illegals, it's far more basic than that) for the work that is profitable to do.

Ultimately, this is what drives me nuts about our economy. How does one fix the lack of jobs problem, particularly in a consumer-based economy. It's like our solution is "Hey, I feel safe about having a job so time to go throw out my old stuff and get new stuff". There's no "let's make capital goods so we can make more goods" or anything more long lasting- it's just a perpetual cycle of "lets burn through as many resources as possible with no societal value".

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ultimately, this is what drives me nuts about our economy. How does one fix the lack of jobs problem, particularly in a consumer-based economy.

I believe what we're discovering is that, ultimately, you don't.

There's no "let's make capital goods so we can make more goods" or anything more long lasting

Not sure I'm following you here. Wouldn't that logically take place before the unemployment (and ensuing lack of demand) rather than during? For that matter, to some extent we've used capital goods (at least as I understand the phrase) to eliminate jobs, been doing that roughly since the industrial revolution started.

Seems to me that "means of production" upgrades often fall more in line with making the same (or more) with less people, not necessarily making better products. Today's example would be the 12,000 postal workers facing layoffs, in no small part because of technology (which seems to function as like a capital good, not sure whether it qualifies by definition though) that has made much of the mail once delivered obsolete.

I'm sure you've got a valid complaint/concern in there somewhere, I just don't think I'm following what you were driving at exactly.

[Marc Vaughan]

I believe what we're discovering is that, ultimately, you don't.

I agree totally with you.

Now, if you'll excuse me while I finish putting flowers in my hair and going full on hippy ....

The reality of the changes of technology and globalisation of industries is that there simply aren't enough jobs to go around - nor should there be at this period in history really.

Two things are far out-dated imho and need to evolve and change in some manner so that society can move on and improve:

* Money
Money was created purely to allow people to barter and exchange goods efficiently; as such it was a means to an end to improve the lot of people within society.
It is no longer doing that - instead its congealing around a small section of society and being hoarded by them and largely denied to the less well off sections of society (ie. not providing them with what I personally would consider an adequate standard of living - not just in terms of food; heating ... but education etc.).

* Capitalism
This was used to encourage people to improve society and push technology forward etc. - unfortunately corporations are now at the size and influence where instead of this they are impeding social improvements (ie. avoiding paying tax on their profits, pay low wages, poor holiday entitlement etc.) and actively preventing technological improvements in order to maximise profits (ie. Oil companies etc).

What the solutions for these situations are - I don't know at present to be honest I don't think change is coming for quite a while yet, perhaps in my kids generation ..... but I can see the warning signs, people are being discriminated against and marginalized out of society because they're unemployed for (in many cases) no fault of their own.

At present because the unemployed are still a largely disorganized minority - this discrimination is tolerated within society, however this might change once they are the majority (not infeasible in 20 years time imho) ....

btw in case you wondered these comments are aimed at the 'world' at large and not any particular country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I agree totally with you. Now, if you'll excuse me while I finish putting flowers in my hair and going full on hippy ....

I'd argue that what's become most outdated due to the changes you mention would be unrestricted birth rates and insufficient limits on immigration.

In case anyone isn't clear, yes I basically just said I think the Chinese have a pretty good idea on the whole baby limit thing.

[sterlingice]

As horribly eugenic as it is on the unrestricted birth rates (and as dirty as these words always make me feel): I'm with you JiMGA. It's only a matter of time before birthing is opt in and not opt out. It's never made any sense that it's much easier to give birth than to adopt, for instance. We have no problem letting whoever, from 13 year olds to 35 year olds on crack, have kids but if you want to adopt one that has been given up- it's a giant fight.

I'm pretty sure that sort of change happens in the next 50 years unless something else we do drastically balances out the population equation (war, plague, etc)

I don't know much about their immigration at all. I'm also kindof always befuddled by the last couple of page's emphasis on citizenship as a birthright to something. I've never quite understood why where someone was born guarantees them any sort of automatic rights (as an aside- it's why I've never understood the whole emotion attached to the "anchor baby" thing)

SI

[stevew]

I was at a wedding the other weekend where 2 of my wife's cousins could have starred in a show called 11 kids, no job. I don't get how the gov't allows people to keep getting pregnant. You'd think some sort of tipping point would occur when you hit your 3rd birth under 20, or your 4th kid in 6 years with no job. It's alarming. Cutting the food stamps off and shit is just going to harm those alive, but we can damn well shut down the birthing ovens on these women.

ie- One of the girls is under 30, unmarried, has 5 kids with a 6th in her uterus. No GED, No job. This is 2011, it shouldn't be possible for this to happen.

[RainMaker]

I don't believe in caps. There are some people who should have a lot of kids. They can afford them and will raise them to be productive members of society.

The problem I see is we have sort of made it taboo to tell someone they shouldn't have kids. If you're a single woman on minimum wage, you should not be procreating at this stage in life. But if someone came out and said that, they'd be hammered for saying it.

Until the public perception changes from "everyone should experience the joys of parenting" to "have kids if you will raise them well", I don't think we'll see any progress.

[sabotai]

Hey, if the government is willing to pay for my Vasectomy to help limit population growth, I'm all for it!

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't believe in caps. There are some people who should have a lot of kids. They can afford them and will raise them to be productive members of society.

The problem I see is we have sort of made it taboo to tell someone they shouldn't have kids. If you're a single woman on minimum wage, you should not be procreating at this stage in life. But if someone came out and said that, they'd be hammered for saying it.

Until the public perception changes from "everyone should experience the joys of parenting" to "have kids if you will raise them well", I don't think we'll see any progress.

We reward people for having children through tax credits.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What won't this guy do? I think I've counted 200 million new jobs in the first five minutes of the speech! Everyone gets a job!

[stevew]

Oprah's hiring us!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What won't this guy do? I think I've counted 200 million new jobs in the first five minutes of the speech! Everyone gets a job!

Your stats and summations are always something to take to the bank.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It would only take two words for Obummer to help the economy: "I quit"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Your stats and summations are always something to take to the bank.

I wish I could make false promises and get applause like he does. That would be fantastic. My favorite part was where he talked about getting American cars in foreign countries. Only way he's doing that is to toss unions wages out of American car production so they can offer competitive prices. That ain't happening.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Hey, if the government is willing to pay for my Vasectomy to help limit population growth, I'm all for it!

My vasectomy cost $5. I would want the government to give more then that.

[gstelmack]

So, after all the big fight over budget reform and the Dems refusing to budge on needing tax increases until the very last second, Obama can't talk about additional tax cuts enough?

[SirFozzie]

cuz he knows he has to throw red meat to the Republican jackals in congress to get anything done.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It would only take two words for Obummer to help the economy: "I quit"

Do you seriously believe that GWB or McCain would have fared better the last 3 years? I love how it's so easy to speculate how different things could have been if so and so was in charge. At the same time vilifying the people in control as a method to debase support, which ensures that nothing ever gets done.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Do you seriously believe that GWB or McCain would have fared better the last 3 years? I love how it's so easy to speculate how different things could have been if so and so was in charge. At the same time vilifying the people in control as a method to debase support, which ensures that nothing ever gets done.

Yes and so would other Democrats like Hillary who would have brought more experience. Obama is in over his head, I don't think that one is debated on either side of the aisle. There's no doubt he's intelligent, has ideas, is a hard worker, is a great speaker but he has done nothing to show that he is a leader.

[PilotMan]

Hillary would have been trampled. She was already carrying way too much baggage. You can lay the problems right at the feet of Pelosi and Reid for completely fucking things up when they should have been smart and accomplished something instead of acting like the little kid who just got the ball from the bully.

[JPhillips]

I'll give you Reid, but Pelosi was very effective at getting the House to pass bills.

[PilotMan]

Pelosi was very good about saying "Na-na-na-na-na-na, you have to listen to us now, because we say so," and proceeded to, IMO, undermine everything that Obama had been campaigning on.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes and so would other Democrats like Hillary who would have brought more experience. Obama is in over his head, I don't think that one is debated on either side of the aisle. There's no doubt he's intelligent, has ideas, is a hard worker, is a great speaker but he has done nothing to show that he is a leader.

I agree with the experience and leadership angle. I don't know if he's in over his head or just trying to get votes instead of doing what's right to fix the country.

Obama has been farther to the right than Bush or McCain though. So if you're pushing the "small government fixes our problems" mantra, I don't know why you'd take Bush or McCain over him.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Pelosi was very good about saying "Na-na-na-na-na-na, you have to listen to us now, because we say so," and proceeded to, IMO, undermine everything that Obama had been campaigning on.

I just don't see that. Everything went to die in the Senate because of unified GOP opposition and a handful of moderate Dems. If the Senate hadn't operated on a super majority requirement for every bill a truckload of bills would have become law. I don't think there's anything that Pelosi could have done to change that dynamic.