Barack Obama is not only fearmongering, he's doing so dishonestly.
Throughout the two year Presidential campaign, we heard President Obama rail continuously against his rivals, whom he accused of using the "politics of fear" and whom he termed "fearmongers." He began to beat that drum as far back as August of 2007. In a speech in Washington, he noted, "Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy."…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Ma rk Ed(en)
Clavos, your argument from psychology is a double edged sword. You're correct - best results would accrue if everyone were to shut the fuck up.
The die is cast; the federal government is going to titillate demand, print money and nationalize a bunch of banks. Best get with the program lest you negatively affect the psychology needed for success.
27 - Clavos
You're correct - best results would accrue if everyone were to shut the fuck up.
From your keyboard, Mark, to the President's eyes.
28 - Clavos
Roger #25,
Your comment to Ruvy regarding the rate at which the dollar is sliding is dead on; the dollar will slide much further as we incur the more than one trillion (including interest) debt for the "Stimulus" Plan.
Look for inflation to ramp up severely as well.
29 - Ma(rk Ede)n
Not to worry -- Volker is waiting in the wings.
30 - Cindy
If anyone is interested. I would like to understand what happened in Iceland when it went bankrupt a few months ago if that says anything about what the US is doing regarding the economy here. I don't know anything about this stuff.
Iceland to set up bad debt vehicle, tap pensions
The collapse of the Icelandic banks, which were taken over by the government in the space of a few days in October last year, has laid waste the economy which is expected to contract by as much as 10 percent this year. Unemployment is set to soar.
That quote is on page 2 of that article.
31 - Roger Nowosielski
You may be playing into Pablo's hands, Clavos. He might want to argue it's all a part of some devilish plan to reduce the dollar to the level of the peso - the first step, as it were, towards the NWO.
I'm arguing for just such a possibility, anyways, in my upcoming piece, though not from any conspiratorial end - only as a kind of "invisible hand" explanation. I know I'm going to incur wrath from the likes of Mark Eden or Les Slater. Though with Pablo, I believe we'll reach some sort of understanding.
32 - Cindy
Who knows Roger...I may not be too dumb to add something to your "boys club".
33 - Roger Nowosielski
They're not my club!
34 - Cindy
That is not my point.
35 - Roger Nowosielski
I know it wasn't your point. You're free to join them, of course.
36 - Clavos
Roger,
One can say almost anything on these threads and play into Pablo's hands. His pet "conspiracy" is so sweeping; so all-encompassing, that virtually antything that happens in the world can be ascribed to it.
That's why he's so fond of it -- in one neat package everything gets explained.
37 - Cindy
bliffle,
I am wondering, do you know anything about what I am asking in #30?
I mean, if you are interested in that, of course.
38 - Roger Nowosielski
Apropos #30, I think it's kind of interesting we haven't had much news from Canada regarding the impending crisis. Am I wrong here, and if so, does anyone has some info?
And what about Australia? STM might be the man to answer the last question.
39 - bliffle
There's a lot of inflationary affect in the pipeline:
$800b for the (Obama) Stimulus
$700b for the (Bush) TARP
$2500b for the Iraq/Afghan war
$500B for the 2001 tax cuts
$2000B for various sureties that both Bush and Obama have issued to the financial community.
40 - handyguy
Clavos has basically charged a politician with using political rhetoric. Wow, that's a shocker!
The GOP has been ratcheting up the rhetoric the past couple of weeks as well. John McCain has accused the Democrats of "generational theft" because of the size of the stimulus bill -- the same week McCain and 35 other GOP senators voted for a $2.5 trillion tax cut as an alternative to the bill.
Obama's rhetoric, which was indeed strong, served two purposes:
- To increase the speed and urgency of the passage of the bill [as an act of political will, this bill was a success of historic proportions, very unusual for a slow-moving insitution like Congress]
- To emphasize that we are in so deep that no stimulus bill or other measure will have immediate, magical results in turning things around. [In other words, setting expectations.]
Obama didn't make up the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" line, although you might get that impression from this article. I feel reasonably certain that you can find very similar words used by many Republicans, including John McCain, during the last few months.
Are you including them among the fearmongers?
The paralysis of the credit markets and the rapid, enormous increase in unemployment are pretty scary, are they not? When during the period 1946-2007 have those two situations been worse than now?
No one is claiming that things are as bad, yet, as in 1933. But none of us have lived through worse times.
41 - Jet
I'm not sure Handy, but I think he was making a joke... I could be wrong of course.
42 - Roger Nowosielski
Bliffle,
In that case, compared to items number 3 & 6 in your #39, the present package is chickenfeed.
It makes one wonder then: What the stink is all about?
43 - handyguy
One other thing:
Clavos repeats his meaningless statistic that "only 25%" of the public voted for Obama, implying that 75% opposed him. [If you're not implying that, why use the statistic?]
Current Real Clear Politics approval-rating average for the president:
65.5% approve
25.5% disapprove
44 - Clavos
If only 25% of the adult (qualified to vote) population voted for him, the obvious inference to be drawn from that TRUE statistic is that 75%, 3 out of 4 did not. I leave to the pollsters to decide the whys of that. The point is, more people did not vote for him than did. Nothing more.
Real Clear Politics Average poll on whether the country is presently headed in the right direction:
Right Direction: 30.8%
Wrong Track: 61.4%
45 - handyguy
The reason it's a meaningless statistic is that it's true of every President! Name one for whom a majority, or even a third, of the population voted. You're too intelligent a debater to use a non-sequitur as an argument. Or an adjunct to an argument. Or whatever reason you thought it was relevant to your article.
It may say something about voter apathy [not just now but for decades!]. But it says virtually nothing meaningful about this president.
And the right track/wrong track measure is not [yet] a judgment on the president's policies. And you know that too.
I'd be more interested in your response to my earlier commment than in playing silly games with statistics.
46 - handyguy
Actually, the right track/wrong track poll is pretty interesting. If you look at the long-term trend graph on RCP, going back to July 2007, the numbers stayed stuck at about 70-wrong/25-right for quite a few months, but began to drift into much worse territory.
By the weeks before the election the numbers were approaching 90-wrong/10-right. Worst numbers ever.
Then immediately after the election, there was a sudden shift, not into positive territory, but a lot better: about 65-wrong/30 right. And it has improved a bit since then.
I'd guess a lot of that sudden change [20-25 points] is from relieved Democrats ["Finally!"]. It will be an interesting statistic to watch in the coming months.
47 - Clavos
handy,
The statistic is not a non sequitur when considered in the light of the claim by some Obama supporters that he has a "mandate" from this election.
That's why I repeat it. He won (as he boasted), but the fact is...well, you know.
48 - handyguy
The public supports his effort to "do something" about the economy.
Even, apparently, a substantial number of people who didn't vote for him.
Your argument is so convenient. No president in history would ever have been able to claim a mandate. I do feel reasonably sure that a quick search could turn up claims by Bush II, Reagan, LBJ and Eisenhower that they all came to office with mandates.
We could get stuck on this minor point for a while. Seems to me there are a few other and larger ones worth discussing too.
49 - Dave Nalle
The public supports his effort to "do something" about the economy.
Have you not read my current article?
What the people want is not this bill. What they want is tax cuts and to be left the hell alone.
Dave
50 - Arch Conservative
"What the people want is not this bill. What they want is tax cuts and to be left the hell alone."
Sounds good to me.
51 - Clavos
Your argument is so convenient. No president in history would ever have been able to claim a mandate.
yOU still miss my point. I never said (nor implied) he's the only prez in history without a mandate; I'm just refuting those who say he does have one.
52 - handyguy
You're refuting it via sleight of hand. Not sure why you think that's necessary or useful.
53 - handyguy
What the people want is not this bill. What they want is tax cuts and to be left the hell alone.
This is what conservatives want, sure. There is no indication that it is what the people as a whole want. If they had, they would have elected McCain and a Republican Congress.
54 - handyguy
And, Clavos, your article does not mention, once, the word "mandate" or any claim thereof.
55 - Clavos
your article does not mention, once, the word "mandate" or any claim thereof.
Irrelevant, handy. It's pre-emptive.
Admit it, handy. What bugs you most is that I'm criticizing your guy with reason.
He railed against fearmongering during the campaign, and now he's doing it himself. The rest is just hair-splitting.
The larger point is, he's hurting his own plan big time, by frightening the consumers. They're already reluctant to spend, and he's scaring them even more.
He's never managed anything in his life, and it shows. I hope like hell he catches on soon, because I'm also in this decrepit, leaky old boat, and so far, I have no confidence in the captain.
56 - Hope and Change?
Nothing elicits fear more than an angry black woman!!!
57 - handyguy
My comment #40, to which you never responded, takes on your false argument about fearmongering.
I like rational argument based on actual reasoning. Your article is a straightforward, partisan hit piece - it barely touches on reason.
58 - bliffle
Clavos says:
"He's never managed anything in his life, and it shows. I hope like hell he catches on soon, because I'm also in this decrepit, leaky old boat, and so far, I have no confidence in the captain."
Did you have confidence in the previous captain?
Were you forewarned by his business failures and life failures?
59 - handyguy
I hope like hell he catches on soon
I'm not sure I believe that. I think you've already made up your mind, and you are going to oppose every policy, every statement, every syllable that comes from the White House for the next 8 years.
Of course, I don't agree about Obama's management skills -- I think he's doing fine -- and he's an even better spokesman. In fact, he's already the most skilled user of the bully pulpit in at least 25 years.
60 - Dave Nalle
Your argument is so convenient. No president in history would ever have been able to claim a mandate.
I think I have to dispute this on a factual basis. Jefferson in his second term, Reagan in his second term, Jackson in his second term. All three won with overwhelming majorities which I think have to be called mandates.
Dave
61 - Clavos
I'm not sure I believe that. I think you've already made up your mind
Well, not for the first time, you're wrong, because I do care. Not for him, but for the country; we're screwed up enough now, so if he screws up we're doomed.
As for his management skills: he didn't even manage the famous "stimulus" plan he went back out onto the campaign trail to make speeches, and left it up to Pelosi and Reid and their minions, who promptly turned around and opened the door to every dem pet project of the last 30 years.
Bush got us deeper into debt than we've ever been before, and this guy is pushing us even further down that road.
I'm not impressed yet.
He sure can talk the talk, but so can any snake oil salesman; I'm waiting for him to actually do something besides make pretty speeches.
62 - Joanne Huspek
Clavos, your article was quite insightful, but the responses are the entertainment.
63 - handyguy
Dave, I haven't done the math in detail, and I can't vouch for the 19th-century examples. But Clavos's figures are almost entirely dependent on voter turnout, which has generally been 55-65% in the last 100 years. Thus even a big landslide electorally doesn't qualify as a mandate by Clavos's not-very-useful yardstick.
That was my whole point. If no one qualifies, why single out Obama? Because you don't like him, that's the main reason.
And even by your yardstick, I would imagine FDR in 1936 and LBJ in 1964 are as big as Reagan in 1984. In fact, LBJ might have an edge because voter turnout was high that year.
But a decisive election victory, especially accompanied by a Congressional election victory, is still a mandate of sorts. I don't agree with this very technical disqualification.
It sounds like the sort of sophistry a lawyer might come up with.
64 - Dave Nalle
My perspective is simpler. If the election is an absolute blowout for the President then he has a mandate, even if the rest of his party doesn't.
But I don't think Obama's election meets my standards of a blowout. I was thinking more along the lines of 60% or so of the popular vote. Jefferson had almost 80% in 1804. Reagan had about 60% in 1984, which is still pretty good. Similar numbers for Johnson in 1964 and Jackson in 1832. Or maybe combine that with a 4 to 1 or better electoral college victory. That's a blowout. As far as the electoral vote goes Reagan's 1984 victory was phenomenal even better than Jefferson in 1804, with almost a 40-1 margin of victory. That's a mandate.
Dave
65 - Ruvy
While you are all going "oooh" and "aaahh" at blowouts, I got an e-mail from a friend in Efrat:
He was forwarding this so it may not be original to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: MONKEY BUSINESS!
Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.
The villagers, knowing there were many monkeys, went to the forest and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort.
He then announced that he would buy monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the villagers efforts and they started catching monkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished and people started going back to their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it!
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf.
The assistant told the villagers, "Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that my boss has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when my boss returns, you can sell them to him for $50."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys for 700 billion dollars.
They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of monkeys!
Now you have a better understanding of how the
WALL STREET BAILOUTECONOMICS STIMULUS PLAN WORKS !!!It doesn't get much clearer than this........
--------------------------------------------------
Car for a banana, folks?
66 - Jordan Richardson
Oh, that Ruvy and his wacky emails!
67 - Cindy
lol Ruvy,
You sure are in a good mood today. :-)
68 - Hope and Change?
Gee maybe we do need the fairness doctrine.....
Funny I had to go to the Irish Press to find this.
PBS' Frontline is airing a documentary on the causes of the economic collapse Tuesday: Inside the Meltdown. Irish media points out one possible weakness with the work.
Mr. Dodd and Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, are the only members of Congress interviewed in the piece. WHAT...two of the morons responsible for the meltdown...and no one from the other side of the isle????
Most hold Republicans and Democrats equally responsible for oversight failures. “Frontline” holds these politicians up as reliable, unbiased witnesses, but some viewers may feel they don’t deserve that trust.
Public radio and public television " already funded with your money to the tune of some $400 million in direct federal handouts and tax deductions for contributions made by individual viewers, not to mention untold state grants and subsidies " want a big chunk of King Barrys scamulus pie
Hope amd change..."Only fools believe"
69 - handyguy
I haven't seen the Frontline piece, but they usually do phenomenal [and even-handed] work, so I'll be surprised if it's as biased as H&C hopes it is [of course, he not only hasn't seen it, he won't bother to watch it, just snipe from the sidelines]. It's also possible that the program is more about Wall St than about politics, and interviews mostly finance people.
I understand CNBC also has a documentary on about the meltdown tonight.
Since none of us understands the economic crisis [although that lack of knowledge hasn't prevented loud declarations of omniscience from many commenters here], we might all learn something from these and other investigative journalism pieces.
And if we do find bias in them, better to discuss it afterward rather than slime them in advance.
70 - Dr Dreadful
Perhaps PBS couldn't find any Republican congresspeeps who were willing to be interviewed.
I can actually imagine the conversation between the Frontline producer and Sen. Shelby (or Rep. Bachus):
Producer: Good morning, Senator. We're making a piece on the financial crisis and I was wondering if you'd be willing to give us an interview?
Shelby: Financial crisis? I... I don't... I can't - [sounds of sobbing, then the phone being hung up]
[Transcript ends]
(I don't suppose there's anything significant in the fact that the ranking GOP members of both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee are both from Alabama? Just curious.)
71 - handyguy
Clavos:
He sure can talk the talk, but so can any snake oil salesman; I'm waiting for him to actually do something besides make pretty speeches.
Even before the Inauguration, Obama, on the counsel of numerous economic advisers, asked Congress to have an $800 billion stimulus ready for him to sign within a month of taking office. The figure was not, as he reminded us later, "pulled out of a hat." It was based on the advice of experts.
Tomorrow night a bill of just under $800 billion will become law, 28 days after the inauguration.
Now I know that Clavos and many others despise this bill. But as a sheer act of political force and will, it is an historic accomplishment.
And as was pointed out by Ron Brownstein [excellent journalist, btw] yesterday, the bill is virtually a "Presidency in a Box."
In terms of domestic initiatives, it accomplishes more in one piece of legislation than Bill Clinton [and several other presidents] managed in two full terms.
Hate the bill all you want -- although it contains so many moving parts that to just say you hate it, in toto, says more about your ideology than about the bill. It would be fairer to look at all that's in the bill and talk about the many benefits it will have and the undisputed shortcomings. In other words, it's so huge that it can't be all good or all bad, and to say it's all bad is just political rhetoric.
And to claim that the president hasn't accomplished anything is just ludicrous.
72 - Dan(Miller)
Doc,
Alas, I fear that you misinterpreted what they said. In truth, all those who voted against the "Stimulus" package read this BC article and decided to take the sage advice offered. They are also scheduled for surgery pursuant to the enhanced health care provisions at pages 976-1021 of the package. Following removal of their vocal cords, they will be given intensive training in the use of special bipartisan sign language over the next four years.
It will all work out just fine.
Dan(Miller)
73 - Hope and Change?
"PBS couldn't find any Republican"s...
Nore than likely the Repubs were hard at work or making an attempt to read the scamulus plan, rather than the typical Democrat Barry Worhshipers...sort of like those...you know um....er...government worker types....coming in late for work everyday...taking a smoke or pee break every five minutes...2 hour lunch (eating their PNJ sandwich and taking a nap in their car), wasting tax payers money blogging and searching for porn...all while claimimg to be upstanding citizens and workers...
Yes...the Scamuls Package..Bigger and more Bloated government!
74 - Hope and Change?
More proof that King Barry is no more than a talking head...American Spectator is reporting that....
The White House is looking to install a small video or computer screen into the podium used by the president for press conferences and events in the White House. "It would make it easier for the comms guys to pass along information without being obvious about it," says the adviser.
LOL LOL....King Barry = A Black Jerry Mahoney!!!!
75 - handyguy
Of course, from my admittedly biased point of view, Frontline could do a lot worse than just interviewing Barney Frank for the whole hour. He's unbelievably smart and witty, and can always be counted on to say plenty that is provocative and insightful.
You probably wouldn't get a complete picture of the meltdown, but you'd have a helluva great TV show.