Obama' economics team

Discussion in 'Bill Archer's Guestbook' started by bojendyk, Nov 24, 2008.

  1. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    So Obama just announced his economics team a short while ago.

    I assume you guys plan to point out which members, exactly, are socialists?
     
  2. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    As you probably recall, I was an Obama supporter in the election. ;)

    I have to say that I had a lot of confidence in his ability to handle the job and to handle crisis situations. Still, considering that we are just three weeks past election day, I have to say that the guy is exceeding my expectations. This is an outstanding team he has put together.

    More than just the front people, I have read that his two young, brilliant minds in Austan Goolesby and Jason Furman are set to take key roles at the next layer. Like everyone else, I am concerned about our future, however, I can't imagine a better team or a better start to addressing this situation.

    There was a column in the weekend NYT that tongue in cheek asked cheney to resign, followed by bush effective immediately. That would allow Pelosi to step in and defer completely to Obama. Oh, if only . . .

    My guess is that when Obama says, "so help me God, . . . " he will then ask Justice Roberts to continue holding the bible so that he can use it as a quasi-desk to start signing off on legislation. :D
     
  3. IntheNet

    IntheNet New Member

    Nov 5, 2002
    Northern Virginia
    Club:
    Blackburn Rovers FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Socialists? That remains to be seen; probably so. Insiders as opposed to "change" The One promised? Yes. Let's see here; Larry Summers is a Harvard alum (big surprise!) and he served as treasury secretary in the Clinton administration (big surprise!). I fail to see change there! Tim Geithner in certainly an insider to Wall Street, having served as New York Federal Reserve President, so I wonder how an insider is going to bring change to the financial market. And, of course, I see the name of Gov. Bill Richardson being bandied about for another secretarial slot, so my main question is this... was Bill Clinton's name on the presidential ballot since we seem to be in for third term with these Clinton nominations... Insofar as BO's overall economic plan... I see him planning yet another stimulus plan - an even bigger one - gee how did that last one work? Anybody can throw money at the problem. That won't make it better! And I see he is planning massive public works projects as a jobs incentive; I had no idea the idea was to reward illegal aliens with labor jobs. Was that the idea? Generate low income jobs that illegals can take? Other than that I don't see anything revolutionary... I was happy to see he going to delay ending Bush's tax cuts... that's the only intelligent proposal I see...

    I thought Allah was involved... :D
     
  4. Karl K

    Karl K Member

    Oct 25, 1999
    Suburban Chicago
    None, of course, but my question is this:

    Is the economic team that the Obamabots IMAGINED?

    All plaudits to Obambi if this is how he is going to conduct business -- with high powered, highly experienced and capable economic centrists.

    And the there is his national security team. He's going to keep Gates, who helped implement the surge. Jones who actually voted for McCain. And, of course, Hilary, who has never "apolgized" for her Iraq statements.

    But this is not what Markos Moulitas and Glen Greenwald wanted, and the woman who though Obama would pay her mortgage WANTED.

    Watching their heads explode over this pragmatism is almost going to be as juicy as watching McCain win would have been.
     
  5. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Personally I am pleased with the picks, Geithner is certainly a free trader.
     
  6. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    It's definitely the type of team that I had imagined.

    Greenwald has never been naive about who Obama is. He's likely to voice his displeasure over certain elements of Obama's cabinet--he already has--but he didn't support Obama with blinders on. I have no idea what Kos thinks, as I never read Kos.

    But the notion that Obama is a socialist, that he's "the most liberal member of congress," that he's some kind of dangerous property-seizing radical is specifically an invention by the right wing. It was never true.

    As far as Obama's naive supporters, well, neither side has a monopoly on those.
     
  7. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    Obama and his next cabinet choice.

     
  8. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised. His economic advisors throughout the campaign included Warren Buffet, Paul Volker, Austan Goolseby and Jason Furman.

    As to the farther left blogoshere, I'm not concerned with what they think but I do recall their disappointment in his support of the latest iteration of the FISA bill, and they got over that pretty quickly. I don't read Kos all that often but I did visit more frequently during the final weeks of the campaign as he provided a good composite of polls and discussion of the internals each day.

    I don't agree with him on a whole host of things but he is a smart cookie and I am sure he is in no way surprised that Obama is now doing . . . . what he has always done.

    The people who are shocked are the ones that bought into all the campaign bullshit about Obama palling around with terrorists and taking one joking little line at the end of a 6 minute answer to a plumber's questions and determining that he is a terrorist.

    You mention the woman who thought Obama would pay her mortgage (which I think you misinterpret what she said) and I can come back to you with the guy at a palin rally who said that Obama would immediately appoint Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to key cabinet posts.

    No, I honestly believe that most Obama supporters where pretty clear on who he was and is -- a pragmatic politician who holds fast on core principles but will look for consensus where it is available to get things done.

    It is on your side of the equation where people will be surprised and in a good way. Just three weeks ago, you were still rattling on about not knowing who he was and asking questions about Ayers and his church an yadda yadda. That was all campaign smoke and mirrors. There was never anything close to a "relationship" between Obama and Ayers. Aquaintance is more like it. If you truly wanted to look at Obama's "relationships" they were not that hard to find. Valerie Jarrett. Penny Pritzker. Cass Sunstein. etc. Good, solid people -- just like the Obamas.

    If he elects to keep Gates, I -- and most of his supporters -- are more than fine with that. He has done a good job and should have been inserted for Rumsfeld at least two years earlier. Again, it ain't a big shocker if you pay attnetion. Others he would consider are Richard Danzig and Chuck Hagel. Not exactly hippie dream material.

    I think the part of this that you are missing is that Obama's supporters and the ones who have now jumped on board (as close to 70% think he will be a good leader) are primarily looking for good, competent leadership. They aren't looking for partisanship. That is why he won. That is why he vaulted past a divisive clinton machine. That is why the barrage of terrorist robocalls and socialist innuendo had little to no effect this time around.

    Just comparing your post here to what you were posting three weeks ago clearly demonstrates the class of voters who will be surprised by Obama.

    No worries. It's all good. Just get us to January 20 . . . FAST.
     
  9. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
    Or, maybe not. Zogby.

     
  10. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    A couple of things. Either you or the poll cherry picked the most recent big stories associated with palin/mccain and then questioned voters about clearly more obscure or ancient matters.

    If you asked who was involved in the savings and loan scandal in the 80s, my guess is that it would be much lower. The only recent, relevant and accurate question on the list for Obama/Biden was probably Biden's statement about the first six months.

    Question one is completely obscure. It would be like asking about the ballot in Wasilla when Palin ran for city council.

    Question two is inaccurate or at least takes the question so far out of context that it is irrelevant.

    Question three is wrong. His first event was at a hotel on Lake Shore Drive. I believe his second was at the home of the Rabbi across from his house. The event at the Ayers house was for Alice Palmer but there is no doubt that she brought him along to introduce him to democrats in the neighborhood.

    Question 4 is two decades old and it wasn't exactly like he was the frontrunner in that race. He was doing better than expected at the time.

    Still, none of this really matters. If you are trying to make the point that Americans as a whole are incredibly bad at current events, civics and history, I will gladly concede the point. Rediculous numbers can't even identify Canada as our neighbor sharing a border to the North. A solid 15% continued to think Obama was muslim right up to the election.

    On the last point, it is sad but not shocking. Particularly since the republicans did hold both houses until 2006.

    None of this really matters. The people who can't identify the party that holds the Senate will probably not be overly concerned that Obama picked a competent, moderate secretary of the treasury. The point of Karl's post was that Obama supporters heads would explode. The uninformed won't know who is in his cabinet. The informed will not be shocked. I guess I could have been more precise in my comment that you quoted but I was talking about the informed just as I would talk in terms of conservatives on here and not the yahoos that made fools of themselves at palin rallies (meaning that the bulk of those crowds were not idiots but the idiots are more interesting).
     
  11. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Not only is this obscure, but it's also misleading. He challenged the signatures used to get the other candidates' names on the ballot, and lo and behold, many of those signatures shouldn't have been there. It's a pretty neat double-standard on the part of Republican critics, too: it's wrong for shady ACORN volunteers to submit bad signatures . . . but it's apparently also wrong to challenge similar bad signatures? Kindly square that circle, please.

    It's amazing that supporters didn't recognize an out-of-context statement circulated almost entirely among right-wing blogs! Amazing!

    (A) This was a bullshit story to begin with, and (B) it's incorrect anyway. Obama started his political career at the house of a well-known rabbi. It sounds to me like Zogby wasn't able to "correctly answer" the questions on his own push poll! Ha ha, look at you, Zogby! You're a dumbass who trusts everything you read on blogs!

    The plagiarism story is kind of interesting, as Biden had correctly cited the source of the material in prior speeches. I'm also almost certain that he didn't plagiarize a speech; he plagiarized an anecdote that he used in a speech. I'm not defending what Biden did, of course.

    Again, this was a pretty minor story being pushed at a point in the campaign when the GOP was pushing every attack they could. Biden's statement was undeniably stupid, but he also made it at a point in which it was sure to get buried in the news. I'm surprised that even 47% of the voters knew this story.
     
  12. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    This is rather amusing, it looks like Obama will have a hawkish foreign policy and a free market economic policy and we can’t question how nutroots that earned him the nomination might react to his cabinet picks without being called blind partisans. Hey Bo and Chris, how about we wait until he takes office (or better yet leaves) before naming schools and roads after this great President? ;)
     
  13. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    Can somone point Bo to factcheck.org, he really needs it

    Chris, you're being disingenious about that poll. You know very well that the overwhelming majority of Obama's supporters (and Bush's and Mccain's supporters) are clueless. The congress question completely offsets any thin argument you had about the other questions. And the majority of the people who voted for Bush were equally as ignorant on issues and you wouldn't like it is someone obfuscated excuses to cover their ignorance.

    As for Obama's economic team - whatever. He still believes in bailouts and another round of free checks to people and "pumping money into the markets". All of which requires borrowing from China, something he complained about in the debates. The economy in the 1970's and early 80's was terrible and by many measures worse than today and Volcker didn't pump money into anything, the government didn't mail out rebate checks to people, so Volcker isn't even acting liek Volcker. He raised interest rates, Reagan cut income and capital gains taxes and the economy was solid with crazy low inflation within a few years.

    The measures that Obama wants to take are short term fixes (much like Clinton and GWB economies) that will actually make things worse in the long run. Saying his team of economist are free market people is great but then they'll have to actually act like it. Because some of the names involved are people who on principle have spoken out AGAINST things that Obama wants to do.
     
  14. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Where was I wrong?

    [/quote]Chris, you're being disingenious about that poll. You know very well that the overwhelming majority of Obama's supporters (and Bush's and Mccain's supporters) are clueless. The congress question completely offsets any thin argument you had about the other questions. And the majority of the people who voted for Bush were equally as ignorant on issues and you wouldn't like it is someone obfuscated excuses to cover their ignorance.

    As for Obama's economic team - whatever. He still believes in bailouts and another round of free checks to people and "pumping money into the markets". All of which requires borrowing from China, something he complained about in the debates. The economy in the 1970's and early 80's was terrible and by many measures worse than today and Volcker didn't pump money into anything, the government didn't mail out rebate checks to people, so Volcker isn't even acting liek Volcker. He raised interest rates, Reagan cut income and capital gains taxes and the economy was solid with crazy low inflation within a few years.

    The measures that Obama wants to take are short term fixes (much like Clinton and GWB economies) that will actually make things worse in the long run. Saying his team of economist are free market people is great but then they'll have to actually act like it. Because some of the names involved are people who on principle have spoken out AGAINST things that Obama wants to do.[/QUOTE]

    The two crises aren't even remotely similar! Cut capital gains taxes? Where, pray tell, are the capital gains that would be taxed? A 15% tax on $0 is still $0.
     
  15. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago

    The reason that Volker isn't acting like Volker (or at least not how you would like him to act) is that this is a very, very different animal than the one faced by Reagan in 1980. Yes that was a bad economy but it was different. High interest rates AND strong inflationary pressures.

    What we are facing now is the potential de-flationary economic death spiral. I just saw kondrake, Barnes and Krauthammer on Fox -- I think it was yesterday -- basically agreeing that we need a big keynesian kick in the ass right now and agreeing to the size of the stimulus package being bandied about. Krauthammer said something to the effect of "I'd rather see the 700 billion in the form of tax cuts instead of spending but they won."

    They also referenced a conservative Harvard economist whose name escapes me now who also is throwing in the towel and agreeing that massive government intervention is needed right now. We are now learning that people stopped spending money in June. If this continues or gets worse, we are going to see some really bad days.
     
  16. bojendyk

    bojendyk New Member

    Jan 4, 2002
    South Loop, Chicago
    Even Krauthammer would likely agree, if you sat down to discuss it with him, that the current crisis dovetails nicely with pressing infrastructure needs. Our power grid is horribly dated, and we have thousands of bridges, roads, and schools in need of repair. Obama's plan could kill a couple of birds with one stone. And investment in the power grid could result in net savings down the road.
     
  17. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Yes, I know we are in a serious hole when conservatives are not opposed -- or not strongly opposed anyway -- to big government spending.

    I had to go back and find what I was looking for. Here is a portion of the trnascript from Mort Kondrake:

    KONDRACKE: No-look, if the recession is going to last two years, and if you can get infrastructure programs up and running, you will have something at the end of the day. The bridges and roads need to be rebuilt anyway. The schools need to be rebuilt anyway.

    Instead of a doing it over a ten-year period, do begin to do it over a two-year period, and you put people to work who are otherwise on the dole.

    So that's the idea. This is a Keynesian moment.

    The Republicans had their chance. They did supply-side economics, and look where we are now. Now the Democrats have a chance. They're going to try do it their way.


    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,457244,00.html
     
  18. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Before we all jump off a Keynesian cliff because it is 1930 redux let's review:
    MONETARY POLICY IS KEY

    As Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz argued in a classic book, “A Monetary History of the United States,” the single biggest cause of the Great Depression was that the Federal Reserve let the money supply fall by one-third, causing deflation. Furthermore, banks were allowed to fail, causing a credit crisis. Roosevelt’s best policies were those designed to increase the money supply, get the banking system back on its feet and restore trust in financial institutions.

    A study of the 1930s by Christina D. Romer, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley (“What Ended the Great Depression?,” Journal of Economic History, 1992), confirmed that expansionary monetary policy was the key to the partial recovery of the 1930s. The worst years of the New Deal were 1937 and 1938, right after the Fed increased reserve requirements for banks, thereby curbing lending and moving the economy back to dangerous deflationary pressures.

    Today, expansionary monetary policy isn’t so easy to put into effect, as we are seeing a shrinkage of credit and a contraction of the “shadow banking sector,” as represented by forms of derivatives trading, hedge funds and other investments. So don’t expect the benefits of monetary expansion to kick in right now, or even six months from now.

    Still, the Fed needs to stand ready to prevent a downward spiral and to stimulate the economy once it’s possible.

    GET THE SMALL THINGS RIGHT

    It’s not just monetary and fiscal policies that are important. Roosevelt instituted a disastrous legacy of agricultural subsidies and sought to cartelize industry, backed by force of law. Neither policy helped the economy recover.

    He also took steps to strengthen unions and to keep real wages high. This helped workers who had jobs, but made it much harder for the unemployed to get back to work. One result was unemployment rates that remained high throughout the New Deal period.

    Today, President-elect Barack Obama faces pressures to make unionization easier, but such policies are likely to worsen the recession for many Americans.

    DON’T RAISE TAXES IN A SLUMP

    The New Deal’s legacy of public works programs has given many people the impression that it was a time of expansionary fiscal policy, but that isn’t quite right. Government spending went up considerably, but taxes rose, too. Under President Herbert Hoover and continuing with Roosevelt, the federal government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes.
    When all of these tax increases are taken into account, New Deal fiscal policy didn’t do much to promote recovery. Today, a tax cut for the middle class is a good idea — and the case for repealing the Bush tax cuts for higher-income earners is weaker than it may have seemed a year or two ago.

    WAR ISN’T THE WEAPON

    World War II did help the American economy, but the gains came in the early stages, when America was still just selling war-related goods to Europe and was not yet a combatant. The economic historian Robert Higgs, a senior fellow at the Independent Institute, has shown in his 2006 book, “Depression, War, and Cold War,” just how much the war brought shortages and rationing of consumer goods.

    While overall economic output was rising, and the military draft lowered unemployment, the war years were generally not prosperous ones. As for today, we shouldn’t think that fighting a war is the way to restore economic health.
    YOU CAN’T TURN BAD TO GOOD The good New Deal policies, like constructing a basic social safety net, made sense on their own terms and would have been desirable in the boom years of the 1920s as well. The bad policies made things worse. Today, that means we should restrict extraordinary measures to the financial sector as much as possible and resist the temptation to “do something” for its own sake.
    In short, expansionary monetary policy and wartime orders from Europe, not the well-known policies of the New Deal, did the most to make the American economy climb out of the Depression. Our current downturn will end as well someday, and, as in the ’30s, the recovery will probably come for reasons that have little to do with most policy initiatives.
     
  19. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Hey Chris, I am just curious, but why is it so many lawyers are able to canvas these boards 24/7.
     
  20. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    I'm sure everyone is different. For me, my typical days are a series of short actions. A call, an email, draft a letter etc. By definition, you sit at a desk with a computer, so I do some work stuff and then will take 5 minutes to look what is up and then back at something else and so on. So, it certainly isn't constant but its multiple times a day. Frankly, you need something to clear your head and I'm not in an office where you can just go small talk with co-workers.

    You will also find that there are times when I disappear for anywhere from 1-3 days at a time and that is usually when I have something bigger like a substantive brief to write. Then the small stuff, including BS goes to the back burner. I might pop on in the evening on those occasions.

    Now excuse me, I have to make a call. :D
     
  21. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Great, you’re a stand up lawyer that would never consider taking clients for a ride. What about the rest of crew?

    I'm a computer jockey and could never imagine spending the time you guys do online.
     
  22. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    How can I take statements like "the supply side people had their chance now look where we are" seriously? The supply side economics is part of the biggest economic expansion this country has ever seen. When Clinton took office did he raise taxes to pre Reagan levels? You can make the argument that loaning to poor people is Keynesian anyway. And Keynes admitted his theories didn't bear out in the real world.

    And to say this economic downturn/recession is completely different from the late 70's is nonsense.

    Anyway I suggest reading Friedman (start with Vfish's article) or listen to Ron Paul - who predicted this in 1997. When you have a solid monetary policy in place then there should be no fluctiations in the economy or markets.

    And this isn't about blaming liberals anyway, I blame the Republican Alan Greenspan for alot of this mess. Obama has said nothing about monetary policy and THAT is how you attack any economic crisis.
     
  23. Microwave

    Microwave New Member

    Sep 22, 1999
    yeah I once made a joke that I can spend more time online, like a bigsoccer lawyer. The one lawyer I'm thinking of is on here 24/7.
     
  24. CUS

    CUS New Member

    Apr 20, 2000
  25. VFish

    VFish BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    And the follow up for the critics that claimed McCain voters would do just as poorly: Wilson Research Poll
    :D
     

Share This Page