Obama's First Day

[Arellia]

Obama was certainly busy on his first day in office...

[Republican_Man]

And today as well.

A piece I wrote for school on the historic inauguration:

[Puck]

I will judge him on his actions. So all I can say at the moment is...so far, so good.

[Edit]
Never mind.

[Kyle Reese]

Heh, since apparently Obama hasn't ordered a halt to CIA missile strikes on AQ targets in Pakistan's NWFP, I don't have much to complain about thus far.

[Arellia]

... I don't know if you remember, but people got really, really mad at Obama because he proposed striking Al Qaeda in Pakistan when Pakistan refuses to do so. It was a big deal.

[Kyle Reese]

Indeed I remember. He talked about using military force to pursue terrorists into Pakistan. This is the CIA, very big difference. Not only are CIA strikes more precise, but they are also less risky and operate independently, leaving the US military blameless for these strikes.

So, to simply say "strike al Qaeda in Pakistan" leaves open the question as to whether or not you're referring to military force or leaving it to the CIA. As long as Obama allows the CIA to continue its operations, you won't hear any protest from me.

Also, I wasn't one of the ones who was angry with Obama over those remarks because after he spends some time in the White House and gains experience as Commander in Chief, he'll understand why those remarks made him look foolish. I've never really believed Obama would authorize an actual military offensive into Waziristan to hunt down terrorists.

[beansidhe]

[IntrepidIsMe]

This whole hiring of lobbyists issue has me kind of annoyed.

Don't make this huge issue over ethics if you're just going to ignore them anyways.

[Puck]

Love how Obama is trying to scare us into passing a nearly $1 trillion "stimulus deal". Such change .

(Whoop! for post number 5500)

[Republican_Man]

Oh, but Puck, you have to understand. By passing this stimulus bill, then we can hope again! If we don't, of course, we're faced with "catastrophe" and hope is flushed down the toilet, but if we implement the near-perfect plan of the One, we'll see such wondrous change in this country that we'll again be able to hope! Just fall in line, Republicans, so we Americans can hope once more!

Spare me. I miss Reagan's rhetoric from his first inaugural address. Faith in the people is what we need, not faith that the government can fix all of our problems.

[Theresa]

[beansidhe]

[Puck]

Well, since this topic was brought up again, it's pretty clear this presidency is not going to be any drastic change from the past. I mean, how many people have had to resign from their cabinet positions before they even took them? And now we have Obama talking out of his ass about how this stimulus bill is not loaded with pork. Are you serious? The House version is a disaster. Furthermore, I shudder to think what Daschle would have done with healthcare. Has anyone read what he thinks about health care? I have read some of it and all I can say is: Yikes! And finally, what is all this talk of creating 4 million "jobs"? I really want to see this happen. Then I want to see if these are really jobs, or if this is just people having low paying work on the short term. We can only hope that the Republicans will regain the Legislative branch soon. Leave Pelosi and her gang in charge for another 2 years, and I'm sure we will have Republicans back before you know it.

[Republican_Man]

A piece I wrote for my school paper on the fiscal stimulus package. Apologies for the phony, old, tired, and worn-out arguments and advocation for the "failed policies of yesterday." Never mind the fact that Obama himself is supporting the failed policies of yesterday.

--------------------------------------------------

America is at a crossroads. Congress, pressed by President Obama to act quickly to prevent �catastrophe,� is on the verge of spending more than $800 billion on a �fiscal stimulus package� intended to jumpstart the economy, with roughly $300 billion in tax rebate checks and $500 billion in infrastructure spending.

Hundreds of economists, however, have expressed their deep concerns about the government�s plan for dealing with the recession, and a review of the effectiveness of such policies as those proposed reveals the folly of tax rebates and government spending as fiscal stimulus.

1. Tax rebates do not boost consumer spending. According to economist Martin Feldstein, CEO of the National Bureau of Economic Research, when tax rebates went out as economic stimulus last spring, only around 16% of the checks were actually spent, with nearly five times that amount going into savings. Most of the rebates were used to pay off loans, not to buy new products and services, and the stimulus package utterly failed to preclude the recession.

In 2001, tax rates were reduced and tax rebates went out to make up the difference. While the economy improved after the tax changes, evidence suggests that the rate reductions, not the rebates, did the trick. A late-2001 study conducted by economists Matthew Shapiro and Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan and NBER found that only 22% of those households receiving stimulus checks spent the money.

Furthermore, by the time the checks would be in the mail, the economy may be improving, as happened, according to Steven Weisman and Edmund Andrews of The New York Times, in the 1970s. If implemented now, the benefits of a tax rebate stimulus�a small burst in increased consumer demand�are minimal at best and will not outweigh the substantial costs.

2. Faulty policy is not worth the debt risk. While the value of the dollar has lately gained in strength, it still has the potential to continue its recent decline. As its value goes down and creditors like China see their own GDPs shrink, creditor concerns over their holdings of U.S. bonds will rise, resulting in the likely increase in interest as they rethink their holdings. By spending $800 billion on a stimulus package that will likely have minimal effect, the U.S. government is essentially assuming even more debt, which is already at $10.7 trillion, at greater national risk.

3. Infrastructure projects will not work. Obama intends to spend around $500 billion on infrastructure projects and public works programs, including transportation projects, intended to create jobs and boost consumer confidence. Yet when Herbert Hoover and FDR tried such programs in the 1930s to tackle the Great Depression, unemployment remained in the double digits up to World War Two, averaging at 17.2%.

According to the Heritage Foundation, federal spending rose from �3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 6.9% in 1932 and reached 9.8% by 1940. That same year�10 years into the Great Depression�America�s unemployment rate stood at 14.6%.� In sum, massive increases in government spending did not result in noticeable economic improvements.

Even if infrastructure spending were to have positive effects, an early analysis of the Congressional Budget Office found that just 7% would be spent by next fall, with only 64% reaching the economy by 2011�likely after the country has entered into recovery.

4. Japan�s �lost decade.� Japan�s �lost decade� of economic growth of the 1990�s presents an excellent case study for the suggested package. Over a period of seven years, the government implemented eight different, large stimulus packages much like Obama has proposed.

According to The Wall Street Journal, during the 1990�s, the Japanese government, faced with many of the problems we are confronted with today, tried giving out loans to businesses, boosting infrastructure spending, buying bad assets off of banks and distributing tax rebates, among other Obama-esque policies.

These policies resulted in an increase in Japan�s debt-to-GDP ratio from 68.6% in 1992 to 128.3% in 1999. In essence, government spending in Japan skyrocketed in ways very similar to Obama�s proposals, yet the economy did not experience noticeable improvements until the current decade.

5. An alternative proposal. The government must instead institute wide-ranging, permanent, pro-growth tax rate cuts, starting with making the Bush tax cuts permanent and expanding them. Beginning in 2010, the Bush rate reductions on income, capital gains (investments) and the estate tax will start to dissipate. With the dire need for capital injections into the market, allowing the 15% capital gains rate to return to the 20% rate would discourage investment in the economy. Instead, the capital gains tax should at least be cut in half to 7.5%, if not temporarily expunged for all investments begun this year and kept for no less than two years, so as to incentivize greater investment.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has proposed that the 25% income tax rate be reduced to 15%, thereby �establish[ing] a flat-rate tax of 15% for close to 90% of workers.� Such targeted tax cuts would give the economy the boost it needs to create jobs and increase consumer demand and investment. We must then slice the corporate tax rate from 35%, the second-highest in the world, to 25%, the average in Europe. This would expand incentives for businesses to create jobs in America and lessen the enticement to outsource.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, taxpayers will reduce spending in anticipation of the expirations, stunting the benefits of the rebates further. Alternatively, the knowledge that tax rates will be cut and individuals will be permitted to keep more of their income will give a sense of comfort to the beneficiaries.

By cutting marginal tax rates now, the short-term effect will be a rise in consumer confidence, resulting in a boost in consumer spending. The long-term relief that came in the form of broad-based tax cuts in 2003 resulted in the largest single-quarter GDP growth in 20 years, 7.2%, and the creation of 8 million new jobs through 2007.

The president has disappointingly labeled such contentions against his plan �old,� �phony,� �worn out� and �tired.� Yet history has shown that the net benefit of such stimulus packages is minimal, and he who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

A fiscal stimulus of tax rate cuts, not tax rebates or infrastructure spending, would stimulate an economic recovery by putting more money in people�s pockets long-term and increasing demand in the short-term. That is the kind of economic policy that would do America the most good.

[Arellia]

Three weeks into his administration and everyone's already decided what kind of president he is? Eh. I'm giving it at least a year before I start deciding. He came in during a crazy time in history. I want to see what actually happens.

Also, I don't have much faith in people. People aren't just going to give other people subsidized housing or unemployment when they're laid off. A person in need can't rely on other people if they go through hard times and need food stamps. They can't rely on organizations to pay college tuition when they can technically barely afford to buy food. There are charities out there, sure, but I don't know if anyone knows this; the majority of the poor do not benefit from charities. The number of the poor and enemployed is growing at this time. So yes, I believe that we do need some help from the government.

There's always the argument, "If we just give them stuff they will never want to work again!" Those are fairly poor specimens of human beings. Almost no one wants to live in subsidized housing eating on foodstamps for the rest of their lives. Those are transition measures. I have faith in people's wish to do better, and have better lives. Many of them don't even believe it's possible, because medical care is too expensive, getting into school is too expensive, and finding a good job is hard. They need to realize that help is out there.

... as for tax cuts? Wonderful. How does that help all the poor and unemployed who only get rebates at the end of the year? So big businesses can employ more people? Business growth is good, and important--it should be included, no doubt. I would not go so far as to say we could fix things on tax cuts alone. Better schools, better public safety nets, and more construction jobs will help. I think Obama's biggest angle with the infrastructure spending is to give jobs to all the home-builders (of which there are MANY) who are out of jobs right now, and perfectly suited to construction. Not to mention a lot of people who lost their jobs who probably aren't above doing construction work at this point. Infrascturcture work makes people feel like things are improving, as well, and in a lot of rural areas this kind of work wouldn't just be *nice*, it's necessary.

[beansidhe]

[Republican_Man]

[beansidhe]

[Ntypical]

Thus far it has gone pretty much as I have expected.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/

[Theresa]

[Ntypical]

[beansidhe]

[Ntypical]

Why do supporters always come back this way instead of attempting to solidify why they believe the same old failed policies will work this time?

[Kathryn_Janeway218]

I could hear obama's inaguration ceremony from my house XD

[beansidhe]