Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama on the Economy: 'We Didn't Know How Bad It Was' (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I looked into this claim & I agree (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    First of all, the exercise is like trying to read the future in a crystal ball. These are educated guesses but not something anyone can look up in a book somewhere. With that process comes a higher level of errors - as anyone who tries to predict the future would encounter.

    I reviewed the CBO's (an independent body of the Administration) report of late Jan 2009 when they evaluated the pending stimulus. Things turned out worse than they forecast. In that report, they also considered other expert opinions - very reputable ones.

    Then when Obama went to get stimulus money (based upon an inaccurate but all we had forecast) that wouldn't be enough because of the inaccurate forecast, the GOP chopped the stimulus even more and pushed for tax cuts when other types of stimulus would produce a better bang for the buck to employ people.

    The GOP had access to all the economists Obama did and their own. Why weren't they screaming "it's going to be worse than Obama claims!!" back then if they were truly looking out for America and knew better. But they didn't.

    As I've mentioned before, there are two basic ways countries create wealth:
    1. Dig it out of the ground
    2. Add value by creating products and services
    and sell more of it to other countries than it buys.

    Since Reagan's years, the US had bought $6 trillion more than it sold. Although US labor is very productive, world wide labor rates are that much cheaper. So the jobs got farmed out with free trade deals by a government that didn't do the things it needed to do to help manage the transition to a modern economy while protecting the country's interests, intellectual property, etc.

    As that unfolded and was unchecked, this horrific economy was inevitable - but nobody knew exactly when or precisely how bad. And it won't be truly corrected until the previous paragraph gets addressed.

    From Audacity of Hope, through the campaign to the present day, Barack Obama has stated many times over that he understands the problem and he's got some good ideas on what can practically be done about it. He's needs a congress that will stop the nonsense and get to work on it.

    I realize some are not entirely pleased with the job Obama has done but I see no chance of this getting addressed by the GOP. The GOP want to thump the middle class into providing them with cheap labor again.

    In 11 months or so, you get to make another choice on which way you're going to go on this. If you're not interested in the GOP non-solution, you'd better get to work now. It's going to be a tough election.

    •  Pardon me (9+ / 0-)
      He's needs a congress that will stop the nonsense and get to work on it.

      He had that Congress in from January 2009 through December 2010.  

      In 11 months or so, you get to make another choice on which way you're going to go on this. If you're not interested in the GOP non-solution, you'd better get to work now. It's going to be a tough election.

      Poor Barack.  Let's hope we voters don't fail him.  We don't want to confuse him with another Democratic Congress.  He might take a misstep and renew the Bush tax cuts.  

      Hey, wait a minute.  

      Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: I'm loving it.

      by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 05:05:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "He had that Congress in from January 2009 through (0+ / 0-)

        December 2010."

        Not from what I followed. To "have congress" these days with the GOP, you need 60+ votes in the Senate to overcome the routine filibuster and the Blue Dogs.

        Your claim sounds nice but in practice all the desired legislation most Dems wanted got watered down in the Senate in order to get it passed.

        •  It is not a claim. (6+ / 0-)

          It is a fact.  The Democrats had overwhelming majorities in both of Congress and had a Democratic president in the White House.  

          Only during the Obama administration was this considered not good enough to pass the party agenda.  

          Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: I'm loving it.

          by NyteByrd1954 on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 07:16:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, because of un precedented republican (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cleduc2, Supavash

            filibusters.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 09:18:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Absolutely (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Supavash

              Between something like 1920 and 1970 there were 50 filibusters. They gradually increased from there. But it's grown exponentially since Obama took office. In less than two years of Obama there were about 140 filibusters. Almost nothing could get done without overcoming a filibuster during Obama's term and that is unprecedented.

              In past sessions, a simple majority and some reasonable bipartisan effort could get the nation's business done in the Senate. Now, to have an equivalent majority to overcome the filibuster, you need 60 senators aligned.

              Nearly two years after being elected 190 presidential nominees still hadn't been confirmed .. because of the filibuster and GOP tactics.

              This is a disgrace where the minority can dictate shutting down the government unless they get their way, etc.

              The notion that having a simple majority of Senators would allow Obama to get anything done without significant compromise is a massively ignorant one.

              •  There was one real filibuster (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                marty marty, cslewis, dfarrah, Teiresias70

                There has been one real filibuster during Obama's term in office.  That was by Bernie Sanders last December when Obama made the Bush tax cuts for millionaires the Obama tax cuts for millionaires.  

                So please correct your false narrative.  Obama capitulated in the face of threats of filibusters and not real filibusters.  

                Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: I'm loving it.

                by NyteByrd1954 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:39:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I call bullshlit (0+ / 0-)

              There was real one filibuster and that was by Bernie Sanders in response to Obama's crap deal last December.  Which, by the way is biting Obama in the ass now.  Of course everyone saw that coming except the "eleventy dimensional chessmaster" in the Oval office.  

              New capitulation on the way in 5. 4, 3, ...............

              It's the Obama way in the face of threats of filibusters.  

              Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: I'm loving it.

              by NyteByrd1954 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:37:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why then did it take more than 60 votes to pass (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Loge

                things like:
                Recovery Act 61-36
                Affordable Health Care Act  60–39
                Banking and financial services regulation 60-39
                Last two debt limit increases required 60 votes with GOP voting 40 times against
                etc.

                Because the Dems were forced by the GOP to get 60 votes rather than a simple majority.

                •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                  Because the GOP figured out early on that Obama was the perfect stooge and would do anything for a deal.  

                  Next question.  

                  There was only one real filibuster and that was by Bernie Sanders last December.   The GOP could get Obama to capitulate with only threat of a filibuster.  

                  Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich: I'm loving it.

                  by NyteByrd1954 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:45:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The filibuster can be eliminated with a majority (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Throw The Bums Out

              vote, mid-session. It's been done before.

              That's where party discipline comes in.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:26:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Then I assume you find the filibuster unacceptable (0+ / 0-)

              as it has thwarted Obama and the D's agenda since day 1.

              Do you advocate elimination or at least reform?

              If nothing is done to even reform it, say, go back to an actual real filibuster with cots on the Senate floor, reading from the dictionary, etc., which can be done by 50 plus Joe Biden, will you still claim that the Dems are simply a victim of it?

              That's where we really see what the D's in the Senate want...if they want to govern, the filibuster must be dealt with.

              •  i supported Harkin's proposal (0+ / 0-)

                which would reduce the number of votes for cloture after a certain number of hours for debate.  The trouble is enough dems want, not unreasonably, to have that option in case of a republican president.  others just want the power.

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:28:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So, if NOTHING is done to change the filibuster, (0+ / 0-)

                  which is within the power of the dems in the Senate, will you still claim to be a victim of it?

                  •  How it's done matters (0+ / 0-)

                    i support pressuring vulnerable goopers and wavering deems to vote for cloture.  I never used and wouldn't use the term victim, but the issue affects you to the same degree.  I think the primary issue is how the republicans have chosen to abuse the rules, not simply the rules themselves.  Obama's an entire step removed.  Nb: he used the filibuster itself, including in judicial noms

                    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                    by Loge on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:32:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If the issue is the abuse of rules that thereby (0+ / 0-)

                      make it impossible to govern, and the rules can be, at a minimum, modified by the D's to break the logjam or at least make it much more difficult to mount a successful filibuster, then the rules themselves really ARE the issue.

                      I simply don't believe a narrative that blames the filibuster, when it can be very easily changed.

                      I'm not even talking about elimination.  Just reform to make a filibuster what it was originally intended to be...very difficult and undertaken only in the most extreme cases.

                      If there is no effort to even reform it, the D's have no standing to complain about it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site