FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's speech to Congress Feb 24, 2009






Was Obama's speech effective?
Yes, it provided enough details and inspired the country
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
No, it lacked details and was just another campaign speech
60%
 60%  [ 3 ]
Neutral, we'll see
20%
 20%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 5

jmi256
Did you guys watch Obama's speech last night? What did you think? I have to admit he's a damn good speaker and I was impressed at how he was able to take command of the audience. But as I sat there watching I felt like it was a campaign speech rather than what I would expect as a speech to Congress. My impression may be off, however, since I was distracted from the speech for about 10 minutes right in the middle as my wife came home from work. I haven't had a chance to re-watch the video here a work, but I'll check it out again when I get home tonight.

Apparently business didn't like Obama's speech. Indices are down this morning:

Quote:

Wall St. falls as Obama speech fails to spur
Wednesday February 25, 2009, 9:40 am EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Stocks fell on Wednesday on disappointment President Barack Obama provided few new clues about how his administration would shore up the economy in a major speech before Congress.

Late on Tuesday Obama sought to reassure the country it would emerge stronger from the crisis but investors found little in his speech that could help the market hold onto its attempted rebound on Tuesday from 12-year lows.

The Dow Jones industrial average (DJI:^DJI - News) fell 38.95 points, or 0.53 percent, to 7,311.99. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index (^SPX - News) was off 5.01 points, or 0.65 percent, to 768.13. The Nasdaq Composite Index (Nasdaq:^IXIC - News) was down 14.73 points, or 1.02 percent, at 1,427.10.

(Reporting by Leah Schnurr; Editing by James Dalgleish)


Source = http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-St-falls-as-Obama-speech-rb-14464125.html
deanhills
Perhaps Wall Street wanted more than a good speech? Or perhaps they already knew what was going to be in the speech and that was discounted a long time ago? Perhaps the reason for selling off shares is not so good results of the companies? Together with facts and figures about their future financial status that are not so good either? Probably everything together Question

To be truthful, and this is probably showing ignorance on my part, I did not feel like listening to Obama's speech. I have listened to all the big ones, think I have become "speeched-out". Perhaps cynical. US main street is trying to let Obama know that nationalization of banks is not a good solution. Maybe Obama is not listening? Or he is listening but is too far gone in one direction to be able to change it?
handfleisch
So you liked Obama's speech? Maybe he heard you complaining about too much "Doom and Gloom" when you posted here http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-103498.html and so wanted to make a positive impression on you! (I've heard Obama monitors this website very closely. Heh.)

I also liked Obama's speech in terms of his plans for building up alternative energy, national health care and educational infrastructure.

But I also appreciate that he mentioned the military corporations' stranglehold on the US budget when he said "Reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War era weapons systems we don't use." http://cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.obama.transcript/
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
So you liked Obama's speech?


You've lost me here handfleish. Is that what jmi256 said? That was not my understanding from his posting. I thought he asked what you thought about Obama's speech? He then went on to say that it sounded too much like a campaign speech, while he was watching it, and he was going to look at it again before he could make a final judgment about it. Think that must have summed up how most people looked at it. I'm now curious and will see if I can get hold of a copy of his speech tomorrow.
lagoon
Didn't he keep on getting interrupted by constant standing ovations?
handfleisch
Some important points relating to this debate here were made on the Lehrer program. David Brooks opposes the stimulus package, but is even more freaked out by the no-nothing contingent that is leading the Republican Party now. Excerpt with pertinent points highlighted.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/david-brooks-calls-jindals-response-disaste

Quote:
LEHRER: Now that, of course, was Gov. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, making the Republican response. David, how well do you think he did?

DAVID BROOKS: Uh, not so well...I oppose the stimulus package because I thought it was poorly drafted but

to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem, we can't trust the federal government,' it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.
The country is in a panic now. They may not like the way the Democrats have passed the stimulus bill. But the idea that we're just going to...

That government will have no role, the federal government has no role in this, that in a moment when only the federal government is big enough to actually do stuff- to just ignore all that and just say 'government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,
' it's just a form of nihilism
.

It's just not where country is,
it's not where the future of the country is.

There's an intra-Republican debate: some people say the Republican Party lost its way because they got too moderate, some people say they got too weird or too conservative. He thinks they got too moderate. And so he's making that case.

I think it's insane. I just think it's
a disaster for the [Republican] Party.
I just think it's unfortunate right now.
deanhills
I found a good Website at the URL below, checking up on the facts of Obama's speech:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/fact-checking_obamas_speech.html

Quote:
Fact-Checking Obama's Speech
February 25, 2009

Analysis
In what had the look and feel of a State of the Union address, President Barack Obama spoke before Congress Feb. 24. Making the case for why the stimulus plan he recently signed would help the economy, Obama also laid the groundwork for the budget he'll submit to Congress Thursday and foreshadowed major action in the areas of energy, education and health reform. We're not passing judgment one way or the other on his ideas. But he made several factual errors along the way.

Less Foreign Oil, Not More
One line in Obama’s speech certainly sounded plausible – given the widespread concern about foreign oil – but he got it wrong:

Obama: We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy, yet we import more oil today than ever before.
Not true. We’re importing less than we were just a few years ago. This chart from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that weekly imports of crude oil and petroleum products (in thousands of barrels per day) have been dropping. Imports reached a high point of 15,217,000 barrels per day the week of Nov. 4, 2005. Most recently, they totaled 11,577,000 the week of Feb. 20, 2009. EIA charts on monthly and annual imports (see below) show the same trend.


Only Help for Good-Intentioned Homeowners?
Obama said his plan to help struggling homeowners would aid "responsible" borrowers but not someone "who bought a house he could never hope to afford."

Obama: [W]e have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford. …
But even the program's defenders concede that it can’t possibly distinguish between "responsible" borrowers and those who foolishly (or fraudulently) signed up for mortgages beyond their means. The Associated Press said Obama's words "ring hollow." And the news agency quoted the Federal Reserve chairman as saying even the foolish borrowers would be aided:

AP, Feb. 25: Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

"I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed."

Sheila Bair, chair of the FDIC, also said there was no easy way to vet homeowners. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," she told NPR. And, Bair added, it’s in the "collective economic interest" to not have more foreclosed homes on the market. "To try to punish all of those parties now by foreclosing on more homes, putting more families on the street, putting more houses onto the inventory, creating more downward pressure on home prices when you have so much inventory on the market right now. Is that in our collective economic interest to do that? I just don't think that it is."

Wrong on Bankruptcies
Obama said that health care costs cause a bankruptcy every 30 seconds in the U.S.

Obama: And for that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care. This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds.
Data from the U.S. Courts show about 934,000 personal bankruptcies in the 12-month period ending June 2008. There are about 32 million seconds in a year. So someone filed for bankruptcy roughly every 30 seconds last year. But even a very high estimate, like the Harvard study we looked at last year, would only attribute half of those personal bankruptcies to medical expenses. So that's one health-related bankruptcy every minute at most.

Obama continued his recent habit of asserting projections as fact:
Obama: This plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90 percent of these jobs will be in the private sector, jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges, constructing wind turbines and solar panels, laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
As we pointed out in our Feb. 13 article, "Stimulus Bill Bravado," Obama’s numbers are not certain. The estimate of 3.5 million jobs is backed up by projections from different economists, including independent experts as well as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. However, one economist, Mark Zandi, downgraded his job estimate to 2.2 million once the stimulus legislation was finalized. It's worth noting that even Nobel-winning economists disagree sharply about macroeconomic projections. That’s because macroeconomics is still a relatively new discipline. There is limited data, and even less agreement about what the available data actually mean.

Tax Cuts for 95%?
Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95 percent of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95 percent of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."

He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. As we pointed out previously on The FactCheck Wire, there would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that a more modest 75.5 percent of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.

It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill’s refundable credits under "direct spending."

Xanatos
^^ I think that your post shows some interesting things here...
Mainly that politicians will never change, if the American people want change they need to get informed and not take things that those in power say at face value.
Dark_Jedi06
He needs to stop referencing the Bush years and talking about how it's the "crisis he inherited". It's pointless and counter-productive, not to mention it flies in the face of the so-called bipartisanship he wants to inspire (though of course he's already shown he's quite the partisan). The speech itself was well written and well given, despite the fact that I probably disagreed with 90% of what he had to say.

I did get quite the headache from watching Pelosi continually jumping out of her seat and applauding after every sentence, it was a tad-bit seizure inducing. Though it was comical to watch crusty old Joe Biden make a face every time she stood because he realized that meant he had to get off his lazy arse as well.
handfleisch
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
He needs to stop referencing the Bush years and talking about how it's the "crisis he inherited". It's pointless and counter-productive, not to mention it flies in the face of the so-called bipartisanship he wants to inspire (though of course he's already shown he's quite the partisan).


Well, I think it's important to keep saying this, since Americans tend to have short memories and so many rightwingers were ready on Day 2 of Obama's presidency to blame him for the state of the economy. Reagan got a 2-year pass on the economy he inherited, which was much no way as bad as the one Obama inherited. Also, they say "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it", so I feel it's important that we keep reminding people about the horrendous GWBush legacy.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Dark_Jedi06 wrote:
He needs to stop referencing the Bush years and talking about how it's the "crisis he inherited". It's pointless and counter-productive, not to mention it flies in the face of the so-called bipartisanship he wants to inspire (though of course he's already shown he's quite the partisan).


Well, I think it's important to keep saying this, since Americans tend to have short memories and so many rightwingers were ready on Day 2 of Obama's presidency to blame him for the state of the economy. Reagan got a 2-year pass on the economy he inherited, which was much no way as bad as the one Obama inherited. Also, they say "those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it", so I feel it's important that we keep reminding people about the horrendous GWBush legacy.


I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you do not remember the Reagan administration.

From my personal perspective, that recession was far worse than this one. I was a teenager then and my father lost his business and we lost our home. (Prideful and honest man that he is, my father sold the house short and still paid off the entire remaining debt to the bank over time.) We lived for a year with my maternal grandparents unable to find housing. That recession dramatically altered my entire life. I never saw my father again for more than one month out of the year as he started working as an expat in Saudi Arabia (and did so until 2002). My family never owned another home. My grandfather's business became a warehouse for a septic tank company.

But such is life, and my father's (and later my mother's) move to Saudi Arabia worked for the best, I think. And I learned some valuable lessons at a younger age than most.

This current recession, on the other hand, has thankfully not affected me. My household outflows this year will be higher than last year with at least one major purchase and possibly two. (But I remind myself every day that it's only by the grace of God that I am not hurt by the economy.) I say this just to point out that all crises are personal crises. Our perceptions of how bad a crisis is are filtered through us by how they impact us personally.

On a less personal note, this is what happened in the 1980s. President Reagan caused the recession. Inflation was running at around 14% and so they raised interest rates to bring it down. This act naturally caused a recession. Unemployment was running over 10% (much higher than now, BTW, and higher than economists expect it ever to get in this current recession). His tax breaks seemed to favor the rich while leaving the poor high and dry. (My father wrote a scathing but respectful letter to Reagan in 1982.) His approval rating dropped into the low 30s at least. Few people in 1983 expected Reagan to get reelected in 1984!

But his economic plan (lowering interest rates because of the high inflation, massive personal and corporate tax cuts for all to put more money in the economy, deregulation to get more of the government out of the economy, cutting the federal budget (including social programs except Medicare and Social Security) but increasing defense spending (the latter due to the Cold War and the drastic defense cuts in the Carter Administration) worked and the economy made a comeback in '84, early enough to affect his popularity and the election.

So, in short, Reagan most certainly did not get a "free pass" for two years! He got hammered and roundly criticized. His economic plan, based on supply-side economics, was a running joke and the terms "trickle-down" and "voodoo" economics became punchlines. His popularity sank like a rock and his reelection was in serious doubt.

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you do not remember the Reagan administration.

From my personal perspective, that recession was far worse than this one.....

Thank you for the anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't really stand up to hard evidence -- while your family might have been hit more by the Reagan recession, few deny the current crisis is much, much worse than the economic downturn of the late-70s and early 80s, and I am surprised you would argue otherwise.

I do remember the Reagan admin blaming the economic troubles on the Carter admin 2 years into their term. And if "free pass" is too strong, Reagan definitely got generally kid-gloves treatment in the mainstream press for quite a long time, especially after getting shot in the assassination attempt early in his presidency.
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
But his economic plan (lowering interest rates because of the high inflation, massive personal and corporate tax cuts for all to put more money in the economy, deregulation to get more of the government out of the economy, cutting the federal budget (including social programs except Medicare and Social Security) but increasing defense spending (the latter due to the Cold War and the drastic defense cuts in the Carter Administration) worked and the economy made a comeback in '84, early enough to affect his popularity and the election.

So, in short, Reagan most certainly did not get a "free pass" for two years! He got hammered and roundly criticized. His economic plan, based on supply-side economics, was a running joke and the terms "trickle-down" and "voodoo" economics became punchlines. His popularity sank like a rock and his reelection was in serious doubt.

Respectfully,
M


You are a greater expert as it is your country Moonspider, but being a neighbour and living in Canada during the nineties, I have to wonder whether the real problems we have today were created during the "recovery" of the "eighties recession". That is when people started to change their way of reporting, so much so that you could never really get a true financial picture. I remember I was studying stocks and shares in 1996 and none of the economic cycle characteristics were showing themselves in the economy. The economy was not following classic trends anymore. It was just boom boom all the time. And everytime Greenspan did his magic announcements another hike in Dow Jones graph. I think the recession of the Reagan time was baled out by going into HUGE debt, hence the birth of the credit bubble. I also believe that the credit bubble should have burst a long time ago, however was propped up by more and more debt, until September of last year when it could not sustain itself any longer.

This "bale out" is still continuing, by going into more debt to bale out a recession due to a debt bubble. I think it is worse now than it was then. At least they could fudge the figures then. The bigger banks started to merge smaller ones, large corporations gobbled up smaller ones, and that was an awesome "out" to do creative accounting. But September of last year unmasked that. I really wish the banks could have been allowed to fail, as obviously they are not working, in fact have not been working well for many years. They are too fat, with too many highly paid managers, invisible staff, too many expensive layers away from the people they have to serve, completely drowning in systems, and schedules with expensive marketing campaigns. I think the whole financial system needs to be recreated as to try and work with the same banks that created the problem in the first place just simply cannot result in change for the better.
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
But his economic plan (lowering interest rates because of the high inflation, massive personal and corporate tax cuts for all to put more money in the economy, deregulation to get more of the government out of the economy, cutting the federal budget (including social programs except Medicare and Social Security) but increasing defense spending (the latter due to the Cold War and the drastic defense cuts in the Carter Administration) worked and the economy made a comeback in '84, early enough to affect his popularity and the election.

So, in short, Reagan most certainly did not get a "free pass" for two years! He got hammered and roundly criticized. His economic plan, based on supply-side economics, was a running joke and the terms "trickle-down" and "voodoo" economics became punchlines. His popularity sank like a rock and his reelection was in serious doubt.

Respectfully,
M


You are a greater expert as it is your country Moonspider, but being a neighbour and living in Canada during the nineties, I have to wonder whether the real problems we have today were created during the "recovery" of the "eighties recession". That is when people started to change their way of reporting, so much so that you could never really get a true financial picture. I remember I was studying stocks and shares in 1996 and none of the economic cycle characteristics were showing themselves in the economy. The economy was not following classic trends anymore. It was just boom boom all the time. And everytime Greenspan did his magic announcements another hike in Dow Jones graph. I think the recession of the Reagan time was baled out by going into HUGE debt, hence the birth of the credit bubble. I also believe that the credit bubble should have burst a long time ago, however was propped up by more and more debt, until September of last year when it could not sustain itself any longer.

This "bale out" is still continuing, by going into more debt to bale out a recession due to a debt bubble. I think it is worse now than it was then. At least they could fudge the figures then. The bigger banks started to merge smaller ones, large corporations gobbled up smaller ones, and that was an awesome "out" to do creative accounting. But September of last year unmasked that. I really wish the banks could have been allowed to fail, as obviously they are not working, in fact have not been working well for many years. They are too fat, with too many highly paid managers, invisible staff, too many expensive layers away from the people they have to serve, completely drowning in systems, and schedules with expensive marketing campaigns. I think the whole financial system needs to be recreated as to try and work with the same banks that created the problem in the first place just simply cannot result in change for the better.


I'm not enough of a financial expert to argue one way or another. My main point was that Reagan did not get a free pass. To me all macroeconomic theory is voodoo economics. Wink Unlike science, we can't conduct experiments to test theories. All we have is historical data. And there are so many factors affecting the economy at any given time that I believe pointing to a tax increase as solving the problem or a tax decrease as solving the problem (or any other single factor or government policy) at any given time in history is educated guess work at best.

It seems to me that everything goes in cycles: Economic growth (about 5 - 7 years) and then a recession about 12 - 24 months. If the last boon occurred with lower taxes and deregulation, the next recession is "solved" by increasing taxes/government and creating more regulations. Five to seven years later another recession hits. This time the recovery plan is lowering taxes and deregulation. The economy bounces back and then 5 - 7 years later another recession, solved by regulation and increased taxes... Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way it looks. I honestly wonder if any experts really know how the economy works.

I personally would like to have a recession and the government do nothing. Just out of curiosity, as sort of an experiment. How long would a recovery take without the government trying to fix it?

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:


I'm not enough of a financial expert to argue one way or another. My main point was that Reagan did not get a free pass. To me all macroeconomic theory is voodoo economics. Wink Unlike science, we can't conduct experiments to test theories. All we have is historical data. And there are so many factors affecting the economy at any given time that I believe pointing to a tax increase as solving the problem or a tax decrease as solving the problem (or any other single factor or government policy) at any given time in history is educated guess work at best.

It seems to me that everything goes in cycles: Economic growth (about 5 - 7 years) and then a recession about 12 - 24 months. If the last boon occurred with lower taxes and deregulation, the next recession is "solved" by increasing taxes/government and creating more regulations. Five to seven years later another recession hits. This time the recovery plan is lowering taxes and deregulation. The economy bounces back and then 5 - 7 years later another recession, solved by regulation and increased taxes... Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way it looks. I honestly wonder if any experts really know how the economy works.

I personally would like to have a recession and the government do nothing. Just out of curiosity, as sort of an experiment. How long would a recovery take without the government trying to fix it?

Respectfully,
M


Well few of us are financial experts, and I agree with you about economics. Maybe you've heard the joke -- you could lie all the economists in the world end to end and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion. By the way, did you know the term "voodoo economics" was coined by the first George Bush when he ran against Reagan? Ironic, since Bush came to endorse and presided over the voodoo economics (not to mention the Savings and Loans deregulation crisis and bailout which US taxpayers are still paying for today. The more things change, the more they stay the same.)

But at the same time we can separate out the (so-called) financial experts and economists who seem to be molding their view around ideological lines and/or personal gain, those who benefit from think tank sponsorship and so seem to being paid to push a certain view versus those who have made a dispassionate observation of the way economies function.

To me the "Laffer Curve", in terms of how the Reagan-Bush admin used it, is really the "Laugher Curve", just the wealthy elite laughing while riding Reagan's popularity to rig tax cuts for themselves.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Quote:

to come up at this moment in history with a stale 'government is the problem, we can't trust the federal government,' it's just a disaster for the Republican Party.

So you'd say we can trust the government?
deanhills
I believe the actors in the system, like Obama with his speeches, perhaps has good intentions. However, the system is flawed. The political system has been the same for too long. It is too big and too clumsy to move fast and efficient as is needed in this situation.

I agree with Moonspider too, it would be very interesting to see how the financial crisis would play itself out with ZERO interference of Government. I think the first thing that will be noticed is that the Government will not be able to use the Banks to finance its programs? But yes, that would be an interesting "what if" scenario to research.
handfleisch
As I was saying...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27policy.html?_r=1&hp
Quote:
Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: February 26, 2009

The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
...
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains.
After Mr. Obama spent much of his first five weeks in office responding to the financial crisis, his budget effectively tried to reclaim momentum for the priorities on which he campaigned.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
As I was saying...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27policy.html?_r=1&hp
Quote:
Obama’s Budget Plan Sweeps Away Reagan Ideas

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: February 26, 2009

The budget that President Obama proposed on Thursday is nothing less than an attempt to end a three-decade era of economic policy dominated by the ideas of Ronald Reagan and his supporters.
...
More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years. They do so first by rewriting the tax code and, over the longer term, by trying to solve some big causes of the middle-class income slowdown, like high medical costs and slowing educational gains.
After Mr. Obama spent much of his first five weeks in office responding to the financial crisis, his budget effectively tried to reclaim momentum for the priorities on which he campaigned.

Handfleisch, have you noted that this article gives no fact, just opinion?
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
But at the same time we can separate out the (so-called) financial experts and economists who seem to be molding their view around ideological lines and/or personal gain, those who benefit from think tank sponsorship and so seem to being paid to push a certain view versus those who have made a dispassionate observation of the way economies function.


Call me a cynic, but I don't think there's any such thing as a "dispassionate" academic. Even if they have no other agenda to push, they have their own theories, papers, and books to back. An academic will be reticent to lend any support to something (including facts) that contradicts their own work.

That's what I saw (and still see) in the fields of history and archaeology before I decided to make money for a living and got an MBA. (My wife's an archaeologist, so I left the history/archaeology/museum field when we married. I figured one of us had to make a living! Wink) Thus in my cynicism I assume the field of economics to be no different. If you think someone (anyone) is unbiased, you just haven't dug deep enough yet to find their biases.

deanhills wrote:
I agree with Moonspider too, it would be very interesting to see how the financial crisis would play itself out with ZERO interference of Government. I think the first thing that will be noticed is that the Government will not be able to use the Banks to finance its programs? But yes, that would be an interesting "what if" scenario to research.


I'm not a gambler, but I'd be willing to bet that government interference causes no statistically significant impact on the length or severity of a recession. Furthermore, any action, whether "conservative" or "liberal" would have the exact same imapct though the policies are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Or what if the trick is only for the government to appear to be doing something, no matter what it is, and for the majoarity of the population and institutions to believe that it is "good?"

Now that would be a fun experiment! The president of the United States, along with rest of government in some grand conspiracy of 9/11 or Roswellian style, does absolutely nothing to help a recession. But all of the leaders get before the people and say they are doing this and this and that and that. Would those statements, coupled with no action whatsoever, have statistically the same effect as a grandiose economic recovery plan?

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
Now that would be a fun experiment! The president of the United States, along with rest of government in some grand conspiracy of 9/11 or Roswellian style, does absolutely nothing to help a recession. But all of the leaders get before the people and say they are doing this and this and that and that. Would those statements, coupled with no action whatsoever, have statistically the same effect as a grandiose economic recovery plan?

Respectfully,
M


Who knows, maybe that is exactly what is happening right now? A grand conspiracy in which Obama has been set up (Presidents and Governments acting predictably) and whoever is in charge of the conspiracy knows exactly what the outcome is going to be and is planning on it? Smile
Related topics
Interesting facts about your state
Bassmasters Classic
WGA Strike
Congratulations President Obama
2009 Predictions
Green Comet Approaches Earth
Obama and Dems Hindering Recovery
Closing the Military Prison at Guantanamo
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Obama's speech to students Kindergarten through 12
School that refused Obama speech will bus kids to Bush talk
Thanks Obama for the working class tax cuts
Personal Income Lower Under Obama
Obama's State of the Union 2012
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.