Righties blame lefties for financial problems

This is from a piece about David Cameron's right-handed attack on British Labour:

Cameron said that he wanted the Tories to be "a voice for change, optimism and hope". He said that his vision was for "responsible government and responsible business helping to build a responsible 21st century nation – where social reform and decentralisation strengthen our society, where a stronger society reduces demands on the taxpayer, and where lower taxes, a less interfering, bureaucratic state and green growth combine to produce a sustainable economy."

He also identified three priorities for his party in 2009: showing that it had learnt the lessons from the debt crisis, offering positive ideas to tackle the recession, and setting out a positive vision for change.

This is the same batch of bad ideas that Americans loved to hear from Bush. Morality, positive thoughts, responsibility ('ownership society'), small government, less regulation. Interesting idea that government borrowing caused the financial meltdown. Wrong, but interesting.

I suspect our British cousins might fall for the same bad policies we Americans embraced with enthusiasm for the last 8 years.

Lawrence Summers in the Washington Post

I want to put this piece here in its entirety, but I want to point out a few tidbits on the Bushes that appeared recently. President Bush was asked his opinion on the need for economic stimulus and he said that the drop in gasoline prices was just the stimulus needed. Misses Dumbass Bush was asked about the idea that her husband's presidency is the worst in US history, said some shallow stupid things like "I know it's not, and so I don't really feel like I need to respond to people that view it that way," Mrs. Bush said in an interview that aired Sunday. "I think history will judge and we'll see later." All set.

From The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122601299.html

Obama's Down Payment
A Stimulus Must Aim for Long-Term Results
By Lawrence Summers
Sunday, December 28, 2008; Page B07

When President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he will face what may well be the bleakest economic outlook since World War II. Economic forecasts have been revised significantly downward over the past several months; today, many experts believe that unemployment could reach 10 percent by the end of next year and our economy could fall $1 trillion short of its full capacity -- which translates into more than $12,000 in lost income for a family of four.

As difficult as these conditions are, however, the Obama administration also inherits an economy with great potential for the medium and long terms. Investments in an array of areas -- including energy, education, infrastructure and health care -- offer the potential of extraordinarily high social returns while allowing our country to address some long-standing national challenges and put our economy on a solid footing for years to come.

In this crisis, doing too little poses a greater threat than doing too much. Any sound economic strategy in the current context must be directed at both creating the jobs that Americans need and doing the work that our economy requires. Any plan geared toward only one of these objectives would be dangerously deficient. Failure to create enough jobs in the short term would put the prospect of recovery at risk. Failure to start undertaking necessary long-term investments would endanger the foundation of our recovery and, ultimately, our children's prosperity.

Our president-elect understands both the peril and the promise of the situation and the importance of responding to changing conditions. That is why his economic team is crafting a broad proposal, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, to support the jobs and incomes essential for recovery while also making a down payment on our nation's long-term financial health.


A key pillar of the Obama plan is job creation. In the face of deteriorating economic forecasts, Obama has revised his goal upward, to 3 million. For one thing, significantly fewer positions would be created in the absence of any recovery plan. Second, more than 80 percent of these 3 million jobs will be in the private sector, including emerging sectors such as environmental technology. This is a bold goal. But economists across the political spectrum recognize that it is far less risky to stand firmly against the forces propelling our economy downward than to be timid in the face of a mounting crisis.

The Obama plan represents not new public works but, rather, investments that will work for the American public. Investments to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries our children need to meet 21st-century educational challenges. Investments to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by spurring renewable energy initiatives (many of which are on hold because of the credit crunch). Investments to put millions of Americans back to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and public transit systems. Investments to modernize our health-care system, which is necessary to improve care in the short term and key to driving down costs across the board.

Laying the groundwork for recovery and future prosperity will require shedding Washington habits. We must measure progress not by the agendas of interest groups but by whether the American people experience results. We must focus not on ideology but on drawing the best ideas from all quarters. That is why, for example, in key sectors such as energy, Obama is pushing for both public investments and the removal of barriers to private investment. It is also why his plan relies on both government spending and tax cuts to raise incomes and promote recovery.

The president-elect has insisted that investments proposed in the recovery plan meet standards much higher than has been traditional. There will be no earmarks. Investments will be chosen strategically based on what yields the highest rate of return for the economy and monitored closely not just by officials but also by the public as government becomes more transparent. We expect to evaluate and to be evaluated rigorously to ensure that Washington is held accountable for how tax dollars are spent.

Some argue that instead of attempting to both create jobs and invest in our long-run growth, we should focus exclusively on short-term policies that generate consumer spending. But that approach led to some of the challenges we face today -- and it is that approach that we must reject if we are going to strengthen our middle class and our economy over the long run. Far from being an excuse for inaction or delay, the magnitude of the work ahead is all the more reason to begin that work.

The writer served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration and will head the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration.

Lefties spin expectations

Huffington Post came up with some twisty headlines from the following Obama quote from yesterday:
"Let me make an observation," said Obama, "that we are running out of the traditional ammunition that is used in a recession, and that is lowering the interest rates ... it is critical that the other branches of government step up, and that's why the economic recovery plan is so absolutely critical, and my economic team, which I will meet with today, is helping to shape what is going to be a bold agenda to create 2.5 million new jobs."

The headlines were "Obama: Bush tying my hands on economy" and "Obama: We are running out of options".
It is cute that the Huffers want to do some finger-pointing at the Bush Administration, but that's not what Obama was saying. He was saying that he needs support for his huge spending plan. This is an argument he needs to state over and over until we are sick of it. The reason is that the American people and the media who filters their information does not truly believe that there is a very serious set of problems in the world economy that can only be addressed in the way Obama has proposed. I saw a poll yesterday that said most Americans think the big 3 automakers should be allowed to sink, because they don't think such failures will have any impact on the overall economy. This kind of ignorance takes my breath away.

right wingers trying to get their mojo back

I've read about the following Republican political initiatives in the last few days.
- The claim that Obama cannot be sworn in because he is not a "naturalized citizen". I doubt there is any honesty in this and suspect some rich activists are trying to make names for themselves in the party and pave the way for an Arnold run.
- The claim that the stimulus package (which I am calling The New New Deal) is "just pork" or "business as usual". Pork is pointless, unproductive spending provisions which are attached to bigger bills for the benefit of a local district. This spending bill is designed to create jobs in the short run and make the country more productive in the long run. This kind of thing worked well in the 1930s, but was ended by Republicans who took over the legislature and destroyed it before it could work long term. Naturally, they claimed that it didn't work because of some sort of quack economic theories that they still cling to today.
- 'All bailouts are bad'. A good use of sliming a complicated idea with a simple, negative word. The truth is a bit harder to grasp as it contains subtle colors and concepts that most conservatives can't be bothered to grasp. That truth is that some bailouts are bad, some are kinda good, and some are real good. This is the argument that the GOP is using to stop the bridge loan to GM.
- Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are the rising stars of the Repulican Party. This brings joy to my heart - Two knuckleheads to replace the knuckleheads who are leaving office next month.

A few gems from Barney Frank - yesterday

Talking about Obama, Frank said the following:

"At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."

"It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process. My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan. Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."

Barney cracks me up with his down-home, elitist truisms.

What I'm seeing from Obama so far

He's looking more Clinton-esque all the time in style, yet looks to be learning from Bill's early mistakes of walking slowly into the transition. So far, the Obama team is long on technicians in the economic team, and short on ideologues. I would like to see some more left-leaning idealists in there, but I'm a leftie and am cool with the more centrist bureaucrats in the Executive Branch. That's what is called for in those offices.

I like the pick of Hillary for State. The "Team of Rivals" comparison is pretty lame given how closely their views resembled each other's in the primary. That's a cute reference on a good book, but this rivalry was largely rhetorical but ideologically shallow.

As far as the stupid continuing debate over the word 'change' goes, it just seems silly to me to say that because he's picking experienced Clinton Admin people that he isn't going to change anything. I can't say much more about that because, well, it is just stupid, that's all.

Back to the economic policy. I've heard Obama say that he is considering some major budget cuts to offset the stimulus and holding off on repealing the Bush tax cuts for rich people. That stuff is decidedly conservative, which doesn't please me but I understand that he has to build a coalition with some of the people who lean to the right of me. The tax rate structure needs to be more progressive not just because of the fairness of it, but because it is practically healthy for the economy.

And I hope his team doesn't put too much energy into trimming the federal budget, as that is just not going to produce much positive short term result for economic growth. Perhaps that would be a good bone to throw the McCain people. Get them working on trimming the pork. Make McCain the Pork Czar. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Don't let the door hit you on the ass, GW

A few quotes from an MSNBC.com article about Bush's recent interview with ABC News:

As he leaves office, Bush said he felt responsible for the economic downturn because it's occurring on his watch, but he added: "I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so" before he became president.

This really burns my ass. The guy wants to 'feel responsible' and blame the current problems on thngs that took place prior to his Administration...things HE DID NOTHING ABOUT!!!!! Sheesh! And people believe this shit! Well, my Republican friends, you have to sling a lot of horseshit to blame Clinton entirely for the current recession and financial meltdown but I am sure you freaks are more than up to the task. Sling away.

Surely, the de-regulation that took place under Clinton was overdone. But even more assuredly the Bush Administration (along with chief ally John McCain) should not have gone even further than Clinton did. Allowing leveraged, unregulated derivatives onto the markets was the start of this. The last 8 years of Executive action and inaction plays a much larger role in the current problems than the previous 8. Isn't that just simple, obvious logic? Probably not, but it seems so to me.

He said he would like to see "instant liquidity" in the markets given the extent of the financial rescue plan, yet he understands that fear has paralyzed the markets.

"It is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became," Bush said. "And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy."

Look numbnuts, easy credit is what led to the over-leveraging of the system. Instant liquidity is a pretty stupid thing to wish for, dontcha think?