FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama's blame game for votes and money ...





deanhills
Looks as though Obama is into the political GOP blame game and wanting to spend money to work on public sentiment - buy votes? I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?

Quote:
President Barack Obama on Saturday pinned blame on Republicans for making life harder for the unemployed and for those who could lose their jobs without new federal intervention. He did so even as he sought to distance himself from the "dreary and familiar politics" of Washington.

Capping a week in which the administration scored a victory -- a $20 billion fund to be paid by BP for the victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill -- Obama reserved his radio and Internet address to focus on the work that didn't get done.

His main concern was the rejection of a bill in the Senate that would have provided more money for the long-term unemployed, aid for strapped state governments and the renewal of popular tax breaks for businesses and individuals.

Yahoo!News
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
would have provided more money for the long-term unemployed,

How long will it be before unemployment benefits are simply extended indefinitely?
handfleisch
The Republicans have really stuck their gilded knives into the backs of the working people this time. We're still struggling to get out of a financial crisis of historic proportions, and the Repubs reject the extension of unemployment benefits for millions? Look for more homelessness, more misery, more kids in poverty (which the right wingers will try to blame on Obama).
jwellsy
deanhills wrote:
I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?


It works in Venezuala for Chavez.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though Obama is into the political GOP blame game and wanting to spend money to work on public sentiment - buy votes? I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?

No, it is much less sinister and more open than that.
There are two schools of thought on how to deal with a recession. One school (the Keynesian) advocate spending higher levels of money during the recession to keep the economy going, to keep people in work and to stop fiscal collapse leading to inevitable depression.
Keynes say what happened in the great depression in the 1930s and analysed why classical economic theory failed. It would take too long to explain Keynesian economics here, but suffice it to say that it isn't necessarily wrong - certainly in comparison to the Friedman/monetarist school which proposes the opposite - reigining in spending and keeping borrowing low. It was that policy, apparently so common-sensical, that led to the great depression lasting years longer than it needed to.
Many political and economic thinkers have opted for a neo-Keynesian approach to the current financial situation. The monetarists characterise this as profligate spending, but it is based on quite sound (and quite complex) economic principles.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though Obama is into the political GOP blame game and wanting to spend money to work on public sentiment - buy votes? I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?

No, it is much less sinister and more open than that.
There are two schools of thought on how to deal with a recession. One school (the Keynesian) advocate spending higher levels of money during the recession to keep the economy going, to keep people in work and to stop fiscal collapse leading to inevitable depression.
Keynes say what happened in the great depression in the 1930s and analysed why classical economic theory failed. It would take too long to explain Keynesian economics here, but suffice it to say that it isn't necessarily wrong - certainly in comparison to the Friedman/monetarist school which proposes the opposite - reigining in spending and keeping borrowing low. It was that policy, apparently so common-sensical, that led to the great depression lasting years longer than it needed to.
Many political and economic thinkers have opted for a neo-Keynesian approach to the current financial situation. The monetarists characterise this as profligate spending, but it is based on quite sound (and quite complex) economic principles.
I can't see how any country can successfully spend their way out of a recession. I believe Brown wanted to do that. The current Government in the UK seems to be more prudent about it. They are aware of the risk of double digit inflation, but sooner or later Governments would have to buckle up. As far as I can see they have never managed to buckle up even during good times, have they? It was spending that got them in trouble in the first place.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though Obama is into the political GOP blame game and wanting to spend money to work on public sentiment - buy votes? I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?

No, it is much less sinister and more open than that.
There are two schools of thought on how to deal with a recession. One school (the Keynesian) advocate spending higher levels of money during the recession to keep the economy going, to keep people in work and to stop fiscal collapse leading to inevitable depression.
Keynes say what happened in the great depression in the 1930s and analysed why classical economic theory failed. It would take too long to explain Keynesian economics here, but suffice it to say that it isn't necessarily wrong - certainly in comparison to the Friedman/monetarist school which proposes the opposite - reigining in spending and keeping borrowing low. It was that policy, apparently so common-sensical, that led to the great depression lasting years longer than it needed to.
Many political and economic thinkers have opted for a neo-Keynesian approach to the current financial situation. The monetarists characterise this as profligate spending, but it is based on quite sound (and quite complex) economic principles.
I can't see how any country can successfully spend their way out of a recession. I believe Brown wanted to do that. The current Government in the UK seems to be more prudent about it. They are aware of the risk of double digit inflation, but sooner or later Governments would have to buckle up. As far as I can see they have never managed to buckle up even during good times, have they? It was spending that got them in trouble in the first place.
But Dean, you don't really know much about economics do you? So why do you expect to have a sensible opinion?
I certainly was NOT government spending that caused the financial crisis - even the most rabid Tory doesn't try to make that claim.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Looks as though Obama is into the political GOP blame game and wanting to spend money to work on public sentiment - buy votes? I have to wonder why Obama wants to do the spending now? Has this got to do with elections coming up towards the end of this year? He wants the tax breaks to continue, and be the saviour of the unemployed, courtesy of the tax payers?

No, it is much less sinister and more open than that.
There are two schools of thought on how to deal with a recession. One school (the Keynesian) advocate spending higher levels of money during the recession to keep the economy going, to keep people in work and to stop fiscal collapse leading to inevitable depression.
Keynes say what happened in the great depression in the 1930s and analysed why classical economic theory failed. It would take too long to explain Keynesian economics here, but suffice it to say that it isn't necessarily wrong - certainly in comparison to the Friedman/monetarist school which proposes the opposite - reigining in spending and keeping borrowing low. It was that policy, apparently so common-sensical, that led to the great depression lasting years longer than it needed to.
Many political and economic thinkers have opted for a neo-Keynesian approach to the current financial situation. The monetarists characterise this as profligate spending, but it is based on quite sound (and quite complex) economic principles.
I can't see how any country can successfully spend their way out of a recession. I believe Brown wanted to do that. The current Government in the UK seems to be more prudent about it. They are aware of the risk of double digit inflation, but sooner or later Governments would have to buckle up. As far as I can see they have never managed to buckle up even during good times, have they? It was spending that got them in trouble in the first place.


Perhaps you could explain where the theory breaks down then (I would think you'd have a Nobel Prize waiting on your doorstep if you did)? Your ability or inability to "see" how something works or doesn't work is irrelevant.

And I have to ask how government spending played a significant role in causing the recent financial meltdown?
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
And I have to ask how government spending played a significant role in causing the recent financial meltdown?
Do you think that governments are thrifty by nature then? If you go down history, Government by Government from say the nineties to date, have any of the Governments employed austerity measures?

Even after doing numerous courses during the late nineties, where economic theory indicates that there should be patterns in a cycle of the economy, it has been impossible to identify those patterns theoretically. Because Government is controlling the economy artificially, nothing makes sense. We're going into deflation now. That should say a lot about spending? When last did any one complain about inflation? And have prices gone up or down? That has to be proof of neverending spending by Governments? Otherwise inflation would not have been as low as it was before the start of the meltdown?

By the way, you must have seen the FT Weekend (26 June) headlines about Obama's budget chief resigning, partly because of frustration over lack of success in persuading Obama's Administration to tackle the fiscal deficit more aggressively.

Note: Not sure whether it would be easy to access the article because the FT Website usually requires registration.
Bikerman
Quote:
Even after doing numerous courses during the late nineties, where economic theory indicates that there should be patterns in a cycle of the economy...

Dean, this is nonsense. You are simply trying to cut and paste a point of view together without actually understanding any of the words. Best to stop now, I think, before it gets too cringeworthy.
I can recomment some books if you really want to understand economic theory btw. An old friend of mine lectures in economics at manchester uni and he gave me a crash course a couple of decades ago.
Voodoocat
It certainly appears that Keynesian economics has failed. America threw trillions at her economic problems and yet they remain. The failure of Keynesian economics is further supported by the recent G20 meeting where every country except America announced that they will be focusing on reducing debt and spending. These countries are realizing that not only did the Keynsian approach not work, it made their economic problems even worse by piling on enormous amounts of debt!

Quote:
Last weekend's G-20 summit in Toronto issued a veiled rebuke to the Obama administration's continuing appetite for Keynesian stimulus. In an oblique report in the New York Times, Sewell Chan and Jackie Calmes wrote that G-20 leaders called for


a timetable for cutting their deficits and halting the growth of their public debt, despite the Obama administration's concern that reducing spending too quickly might set back the fragile global recovery.


An unveiled editorial the Wall Street Journal exulted over the dead end of Keynesian economics. Finally the Journal can report that the idea of spending our way to prosperity is going out of style. The blissful dawn is ending in humiliation and failure.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/keynes_the_end_of_a_bad_idea.html
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Even after doing numerous courses during the late nineties, where economic theory indicates that there should be patterns in a cycle of the economy...

Dean, this is nonsense. You are simply trying to cut and paste a point of view together without actually understanding any of the words. Best to stop now, I think, before it gets too cringeworthy.
I can recomment some books if you really want to understand economic theory btw. An old friend of mine lectures in economics at manchester uni and he gave me a crash course a couple of decades ago.
With respect Bikerman, you are an IT teaching expert, and if you say anything IT related, or talk about matters of education, then I most definitely pay attention, however if you try and put yourself forward as an expert on economics on the basis of economics you learned from books you had borrowed twenty years ago, then that does not impress me at all. I don't claim I am an expert, however I did study the topic for a few years and less than twenty years ago.

There are expert economists on both sides of the argument: I am on the side of those who maintain Governments should stop spending; you apparently are in favour of Government spending as a measure to get out of the recession. I genuinely believe that all of the spending is keeping the situation that caused the last recession alive, i.e. is acting like a band-aid strip over real big problems that have not been solved. The Big Banks are much too big, their financial statements are everything but transparent, and they should not be in the business of mortgages, investments, etc.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
With respect Bikerman, you are an IT teaching expert, and if you say anything IT related, or talk about matters of education, then I most definitely pay attention, however if you try and put yourself forward as an expert on economics on the basis of economics you learned from books you had borrowed twenty years ago, then that does not impress me at all. I don't claim I am an expert, however I did study the topic for a few years and less than twenty years ago.

I didn't claim to be an expert - in fact rather the opposite. I offered to suggest some experts - and the list would have included books which are standard teaching texts. I simply note that anyone who posts the sort of opinion that you do has no knowledge of the subject at all. If you did study the topic then you would be familiar with Keynes and Keynesian economics - that is 101 stuff.
Therefore I don't believe you studied economics at all - or if you did then it was a pretty crappy course.
Related topics
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Misunderrepresented again, Dubya and the US economy
islam is...
Palestine-Israel conflict
Global Warming
Obama or Clinton
Islamic tolerance?
Massachusetts Senate race - Dems in trouble?
Libertarian Rand Paul's bad week.
Obama to Gulf relief efforts: Stop!
The Collapsing Republican Party
US National Debt!
Politics? Does it hurt us?
Who to blame for US Government shut down
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.