What Should Obama Do? (WSOD?)

mha

Maybe this is a bad idea, and admittedly I may not have the political acumen to keep up. Also, maybe folks are not interested given the thread creator... However, when I read about Tea Party rage, and those who have lost 'hope', I shake my head and say, "Well then, what SHOULD Obama do?" Here is an opportunity to phrase an issue -- large or small as one sees it, state what the Obama administration's approach was/is, and then state What Should Obama Do. Others can see your approach and gauge the reasonableness of it.

mha

I'm curious moderator, why is this thread here? Did I put this here in error?

MOD NOTE: You originally posted this on the Parents board, we assumed by accident, so a mod moved it here to Politics.

Just as an FYI, our policy is to try to keep the neighborhood boards for neighborhood issues. If you post a thread that has a more generic take then we'll move it to an appropriate subject matter board. So, if a disucssion or thread has no relation to the neighborhood, we try to put it where folks interested in that subject will look for it. By the same token it keeps the nighborhood boards from being clogged with political discussions about races in Ohio, Delaware, and Chicago, or about sleepaway camps for kids, or the best sushi spot in the borough. The boards are simple enough to navigate that people interested in those particular subjects will find them. Hope that helps- Homeowner

whyfi

Exercise is usually a good start - helps increase your energy level, put you in a better mood, think clearly, etc. So yeah, Obama should start with regular exercise - running, cycling, basketball, whatever.

whynot_31

In addition, he could make some money on the side. He could sell "live strong, live Obama" bracelets ....or, as MHA suggests, ones that say WWOD.

He should price them low enough that folks on unemployment can afford them so he isn't accused of being out of touch.

boygabriel

I am a progressive. Obama, Hillary, and generally speaking, the Democratic Party are/is not. I think by largely shunning various progressive agendas, the Democratic Party and Obama have left themselves in no man's land where they pass Democratic legislation, but it doesn't really go far enough to have a serious effect, yet they unfortunately still have to suffer the consequences of being portrayed as communist muslim America-haters by Republicans (and even conservaDems) across the land.

They're going to call you a socialist commie anyway, you might as well pass single provider health care that, you know, actually helps create affordable health care.

If Republicans are going to disingenuously claim that govt spending should be reduced during times of recession and that govt stimulus doesn't do anything, then you might as well come out with a full-size stimulus that has a serious effect, not the stripped down one that Obama instituted which has helped, but hasn't been nearly enough (© Paul Krugman).

Oh, and stop being such a wimp on gay issues. The country's opinion on gay marriage and gay rights is on a trajectory of acceptance, so why not lead the charge and provide leadership, kind of like you implied you would during your campaign?

whynot_31

When you think about it, this isn't an "Obama" problem.

Everyone clearly likes Michelle Obama, Malia Obama and Sasha Obama. We especially like them when they are together, and he is not there.



...yes, clearly Barack is the one with the image problem that is causing the family to be called the names that Boygabriel mentions.

I propose that we solve this while not exploiting his family for his own personal gain, and (remaining DIRECTLY ON TOPIC) I propose that Barack give the family dog more face time with the press.

Most Americans love dogs. ....if Barack is able to show the country he loves dogs, more people may like him.

While it would require extra effort, getting a pickup truck for his dog to ride around in the back of would sway a large demographic of the country and raise his image in their eyes.



The future: "I never thought I could like a commie, but this one I like: He has a dog and a pick-up". -Whynot's Tea Party member cousins.

booklaw

Imagine how much more the Tea Party types would like him if he left the pickup truck sprawled across the front lawn of the White House... and maybe threw in a few dead refrigerators for good measure...

whynot_31

Hey, my cousins aren't that variety of Tea Partier.

...they are the variety that moves their dead frig to the curb,and parks the pickup on the driveway. They don't heistate to call the homeowners association on those who don't.

Pickup truck culture is complex. He might need a consultant to get it right.

....I've emailed him my resume.

cool the kid

whynot, can you be serious for once?

I think if Obama wants to leave a lasting impact and make a positive change for the country, he should reduce the size + reach of the Federal govt. From there a lot of good stuff will follow (deficit reduction, lower taxes, hopefully simpler tax code etc etc)

whynot_31

I was serious for a while here today on those topics:
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59627

As a fiscal conservative who believes this is the "new normal" and not something we can just borrow and spend our way out of, I'm totally with you in theory CTK.

But, like it or not, were are addicted to crack (I mean "debt")

...."reducing the size of the federal govenment" is a lot like Palino's promise to reduce medicaid spending: It sounds good at first, but it is very difficult to implement in a way that will make folks happy. Folks love their federal monies!

http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59376
see my post on 10/6/10 at 12:46 PM

It guess it all depends on whether this thread should be about just increasing Barack's popularity or making real economic change.

So far, Barack has announced "Free Money!" (i.e. the recovery/stimulus funding, and an incremental ---abeit bizarre-- step toward health care) and it hasn't helped him.

Gasp!

Now a lot of folks are figuring out that nothing is free.

P.S. Our first big hurdle is the elections in November. Buying a pickup and adopting a few dogs is far quicker and easier than changing an economy. There is no way he will get that done in a month.

CTK, I don't hold it against you, but I predict you have never met my gullible cousins. Trust me, they might actually fall for this stunt..... If I'm wrong we are out what, maybe $40k?

boygabriel

You ask him to be serious and then you post that?

Why would you cut govt spending during a recession?

How is lowering taxes a positive change?

What about not spending $2.3B per month in Afghanistan. Where does that fit into your opinions on both topics?

booklaw

The best way to reduce our government's spending is to bring the troops home, right now, and keep them home. If we can resist the temptation to throw our weight around for just a few years, we'll save billions.

whynot_31

Subject: Re: What Should Obama Do? (WSOD?)

MHA wrote: What Should Obama Do? (WSOD)

MHA wrote: Maybe this is a bad idea, and admittedly I may not have the political acumen to keep up.

Don't over estimate us MHA! ....so far we are keeping this fine thread at a level that doesn't require a lot of political blog reading; Those things are toxic anyway. One just needs a little bit of understanding in economics and psychology to keep up on this thread.

Booklaw and BG, I totally agree. Surely there must be a middle ground between Obama's version of "free money" (it seems to incur massive debt with questionable results), and a death spiral caused by a reduction in government spending when the economy needs it most. Let's see, we could:

1. Save money by getting out of wars.

2. Invest in stuff that will have a future return. Tort reform and Electronic health records would save a lot $, for example.

3. Cut domestic spending back in instances where it prevents people from saving for their own future, thus destroying the myth that government will magically provide for them. ....Social Security comes to mind.

....making me be depressed and serious on a lovely Friday afternoon. hmph

cool the kid

Boygabriel wrote: You ask him to be serious and then you post that?

Why would you cut govt spending during a recession?

Because in a recession the gov't is receiving less taxes to budget with. You do realize gov't spending comes from taxes right? Less income (through job loss, failed investments) = less taxes, less taxes = less money for the gov't to spend. We already spend too much on servicing debt (close to 10% of the Federal Budget), makes no sense to worsen that.

When an individual or business faces hard times, they don't ramp up the spending and accumulate more debt that has to be serviced. Why/how would you expect that to work for the country in the long term?

Boygabriel wrote:
How is lowering taxes a positive change?

Lower taxes = more money in the system to be reinvested into business, real jobs, etc. Also, lower taxes = a government forced to become more accountable and efficient. I know lefties absolutely despise the rich, but taxing high earners out of wealth makes no sense when their investments help keep the economy going.

This will sound like right wing propaganda but I've yet to hear an explanation to counter it: money invested in the private sector goes a lot further than money paid in taxes as far as stimulating the economy.

Boygabriel wrote:
What about not spending $2.3B per month in Afghanistan. Where does that fit into your opinions on both topics?

$2.3B/month in Afghanistan = $27B/year. Lot of money, but small change in light of the $1.x trillion dollar annual federal budget. Small change in the context of the military in general. Small change in context of out of control entitlement programs like SS & Medicare. So nah I don't think Afghanistan makes much of a difference. I don't agree with our occupations either but I have sight of the bigger picture fiscally.

So I stand by my points. Reduce the size of the gov't, lessen spending. We've been heading in the other direction for a few decades now with only bad things to show for it. At this point what do we have to lose?

boygabriel

Cool The Kid wrote: Lower taxes = more money in the system to be reinvested into business, real jobs, etc.

where is the data that lower taxes equals higher economic output for the entire country, top to bottom - not just the rich getting richer?

All I see is this (from page 9 here):



(notice the helpful brackets at the bottom of that one)

This one's fun too. Average hourly earnings bottoming out during the Reagan/Bush 1 era:



and what are 'real jobs'?

Cool The Kid wrote: Also, lower taxes = a government forced to become more accountable and efficient.

A noble dream for sure, but sadly it is just that. Smaller govt budgets mean layoffs, reduced services, reduced police, libraries closing, infrastructure falling apart, etc. etc. It's a libertarian pipedream that tries to find a shortcut to efficiency instead of actually instituting policies that improve things in & out of govt.

Cool The Kid wrote: AI know lefties absolutely despise the rich, but taxing high earners out of wealth makes no sense when their investments help keep the economy going.

This will sound like right wing propaganda but I've yet to hear an explanation to counter it: money invested in the private sector goes a lot further than money paid in taxes as far as stimulating the economy.

except, you know, when it doesn't:

http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59627


And staying in Afghanistan for the next 10 years will cost us close to one TRILLION dollars. I'd say that's significant.

cool the kid

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=Cool The Kid]Lower taxes = more money in the system to be reinvested into business, real jobs, etc.

where is the data that lower taxes equals higher economic output for the entire country, top to bottom - not just the rich getting richer?

It's pretty self evident- lower taxes = more money in your pocket given the same wage.

Boygabriel wrote:
All I see is this (from page 9 here):



(notice the helpful brackets at the bottom of that one)

Well naturally since the highest earners are taxed the most, during times of tax cuts they will be able to capitalize + build wealth more than someone who's income is primarily going to food + rent/mortgage + car payments etc. These are graphs of WEALTH, not income.

Boygabriel wrote:
This one's fun too. Average hourly earnings bottoming out during the Reagan/Bush 1 era:



It's a bit naive to blame this entirely on tax cuts. More likely this was due to the inflation that came with the lowering of interest rates by Reagan/Bush. I am pretty sure that was the case for Reagan as interest rates were blindingly high during the late 70s. Correlation != causation

[quote=Boygabriel]
and what are 'real jobs'?

Jobs that will exist outside of temporary public works or gov't stimulus. I.e. census jobs.

Boygabriel wrote:
A noble dream for sure, but sadly it is just that. Smaller govt budgets mean layoffs, reduced services, reduced police, libraries closing, infrastructure falling apart, etc. etc. It's a libertarian pipedream that tries to find a shortcut to efficiency instead of actually instituting policies that improve things in & out of govt.

Lol, not in every single case. On the municipal level it varies, but asking the federal gov't to be more accountable is not unreasonable. There's a lot of pork / needless spending / gridlock.

Boygabriel wrote:
except, you know, when it doesn't:

http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59627

Companies are hoarding cash because with all the big dangerous talk of this administration they're afraid to make any long term investments. Can you blame them? That was illustrated by the second post of that thread.

Boygabriel wrote:
And staying in Afghanistan for the next 10 years will cost us close to one TRILLION dollars. I'd say that's significant.

Not really. Again, that's about 100 billion dollars/year. This year alone the deficit will be about 1.5 trillion (1500 billions). So that's less than 7%. Should be we there at all? Debatable though a case can be made to say no. But in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal. I think Afghanistan is small change in the context of the fact that the federal govt will borrow about 40 cents for each dollar it spends. And you want to expand the gov't????

whynot_31

Medicare, medicaid, "defense" and Social security are the big ticket items.

Transportation is a large item, but a good chunk of the expense is paid for via gasoline taxes ....which is correlated to the use of the resource: roads.

mha

I find MHAself disagreeing with all-o-y'all. Agreed, the deficit is daunting (that's an understatement), but having no deficit in fiscal terms is akin to getting rid of your mortgage: You never want to do it. You want to, instead, have 'controlled debt', no?

To say we ought not to be in Afghanistan is akin to saying, 'okay, we want to world to end now'. On one side is Pakistan chomping at the bit filled with hateration for India, and on the other side is India filled with hateration for Pakistan, and then there's Afghanistan with creeping influence from Iran, and both India and Pakistan. You got Pakistan using the Taliban as its satellite in India and Afghanistan. And oh yeah, both India and Pakistan have the capability to blow up the world. So what SHOULD Obama do? What he's doing. He needs to cosy up to all sides and try to mediate all aggression. It's a HUGE game of risk, and the U.S. has to be in the midst of it.

Regarding the economy, most have kvetched about TARP monies and how they have done no good, and how the Obama administration ought not to have given the banks so much assistance. It's my opinion that but for the TARP money the world would be a much more dismal place. Obama is like the super of the building where the heat is real shitty, and everybody complains. 'Well', says the super, 'If you had any idea what I had to do to keep the boiler going, you would appreciate what little heat you have'. But for the monies going to A.I.G. and company there would have been an incredible meltdown. Yeah, Wallstreet is filled with scumbags, and we need to tally and write down their names, but lest we forget the bubble that they created worldwide? Thank the gods the aliens didn't invest, or they would've zapped us with their death ray. That's my theory about Mars by the way; it's the result of an intergalactic subprime market pyramid/ponzi scheme gone real bad...


It's a pity that we can't go to war with Sudan as the Chinese have that on lockdown. The U.S. needs to bomb it's way out of this recession, unfortunately. All this talk about where we need to get out of, we tend to forget that the U.S. tax base is also paying for the goods and services the soldiers and mercenaries require. Yeah, Halliburton is becoming richer than god, but these wars, perversely, are helping the U.S. economy. Obama can't end these wars without risking life to his limbs and family. Are you kidding? The military industrial complex would probably microwave him for doing that. The best he can do is manage the chaos and bring the boil down to a simmer. What he SHOULD do is to get big business to invest in green industry with more gusto; and I think he's doing that. Just saw the cover of the NY Times yesterday. Apparently Google is partnering with some company, putting up 200 million to build an underwater electricity grid that will be the conduit for windmills. This country will be dramatically different in 20 years. Obama (revered or reviled) will be seen as the American president who ably managed the storm created by the amorally-elitist Bush clan and their fucked up peers. We live in a tube in the United States. We don't recognize how positively the world sees him. The irony of the rabid whitefoks who see him as Muslim, is that IS exactly how he is seen by a HUGE chunk of the Muslim world. But in the same way that he is perceived by many in the U.S. as a POST-race individual, they perceive him as a POST-ISLAM person. He is Black, yet he isn't; he is Muslim, yet he isn't. He's the FUTURE. Obama represents where the rest of the world wants to be. And he's our president. So yeah, our debt will be Ka-ray-zee for about forever, but what will debt mean anyway? What DOES it mean? It means NOTHING -- that's what it means! And Obama sees that -- I think. The world is about to change -- dramatically (yet incrementally) Start building your Buckminster Fuller spheres people, cuz that's where we'll be living...

Keep your heads up....

whynot_31

For those who are prostimulus, here's some ammo:

http://www.blip.tv/file/4214235/

mha

Personally I think the Tea Party folk represent what's wrong with this country. They are the formally entitled whitefolks who had great jobs doing brainless work for mega corporations which have taken their jobs overseas and now funnel a bit of their booty into Tea Party organizations for the sake of creating political chaos and a quasi populist movement. Murdock -- whose corporate hand stretches across the great pond into England and the U.S. and Australia -- who owns the wretched New York Post and now the Wall Street Journal uses these whitefolks with a sense of entitlement (and a lack of understanding of capitalism) as a means of creating a power base. These idiots said nothing when Bush ruined the country, and now they go around saying the president is a Muslim, not a citizen, and worse, Hitler. I truly hope that with the changing economic shifts which are occurring, this country can excise itself of such idiots; it will.

booklaw

My impression of Tea Party members is that they are uneducated, uninformed, and probably unintelligent working class types, rather than people who had "great jobs working for mega corporations" (which to me suggests white collar workers).

I trust that you intended your comment about "a lack of understanding of capitalism" to refer to the whitefolks used by Murdock, rather than to Murdock himself?

I'm afraid the idiots are with us as long as they live... hopefully they'll be less agitated and thus less of a problem if and when the economy improves.

mha

Murdock's use of...

whynot_31

booklaw wrote: My impression of Tea Party members is that they are uneducated, uninformed, and probably unintelligent working class types, rather than people who had "great jobs working for mega corporations" (which to me suggests white collar workers).

Whynot's Teaparty cousin in Ohio has a BA degree, and is about 35.

His family is Born Again.

One is a engineer.
The other teaches at a religious elementary school

Household income about 70k (approximately 120k in NYC dollars)

booklaw

I don't want to believe that... but (sadly) I do.

boygabriel

Tea Party supporters on average are more educated than the average American, have a bachelor's degree, and are solidly middle class (for as long as that distinction continues to exist).

They are also overwhelmingly white, male, older, and vote Republican.

In other words, they're Republicans who yell louder.

whynot_31

Jabbering re: how these folks would tweak the stimulus as it pertains to NYS.

In addition to getting a pickup truck and a dog, perhaps Obama could and should listen to them......

http://www.kirwaninstitute.org/connect/nysa-stimulus-research.php

mha

I don't think the education level of these folk implies legitimacy of their argument. In addition, the predominant right wing political hacks never embraced Tea Party rhetoric until they saw its growing power. It's insincere of Rove, Limbaugh, Beck and all the other folks to even proffer Tea Party rhetoric because they never held those positions until they saw the growing wave of whitefolk dissent. Those tea party people represent a strong rightward swing of the political pendulum, which will only create a strong leftward swing of the pendulum later. The catalyst for all of this -- bottomline -- is race. How can anyone take this party seriously when it spends a portion of its time trying to say that Obama ought not to be president because he is a Muslim, nor a citizen, and can be equated to Hitler??! The response to this is, 'Well, the Tea Party is a big umbrella under which yada yada yada..." Well, where's the rhetoric underneath that big umbrella contesting this sublimated racist stuff? And on the right you have the Republican party hacks too afraid to confront the lynch mob rhetoric. It's pathetic. So WSOD? I think he ought to spend more time talking about the arguments made by the TP folks, and show the country the logic of their rhetoric. He takes this stoic stance that irritates the hell out of me. He's too 'Sidney Poitier' for my liking. This, more than anything, reveals his dissonance from the African American tradition of oral confrontation. But that's fodder for another conversation.

boygabriel

I don't think the education level of these folk implies legitimacy of their argument.

I don't think anyone was saying this.

I was just pointing out that their beliefs are not based on a lack of traditional education or being 'disaffected working class whites', b/c a majority are not.

mha

cooool...... Just making sure

whynot_31

The cousin family owns it's home. Attended Ohio State U

not dumb, but thinks that the country is being "given away".

One can answer the question "given away to whom?" as they choose because he doesn't answer that question when asked.

Ah, families....

cool the kid

Boygabriel, this Bud's for you

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html?src=me&ref=general

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html?src=me&ref=general

=====

Sometimes a local issue perfectly illuminates a larger national problem. Such is the case with the opposition of the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie, to construction of a new tunnel between his state and New York.

Christie argues that a state that is currently facing multibillion-dollar annual deficits cannot afford a huge new spending project that is already looking to be $5 billion overbudget. His critics argue that this tunnel is exactly the sort of infrastructure project that New Jersey needs if it’s to prosper in the decades ahead.

Both sides are right. But what nobody seems to be asking is: Why are important projects now unaffordable? Decades ago, when the federal and state governments were much smaller, they had the means to undertake gigantic new projects, like the Interstate Highway System and the space program. But now, when governments are bigger, they don’t.

The answer is what Jonathan Rauch of the National Journal once called demosclerosis. Over the past few decades, governments have become entwined in a series of arrangements that drain money from productive uses and direct it toward unproductive ones.

New Jersey can’t afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state’s employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company. These benefits costs are rising by 16 percent a year.

New York City has to strain to finance its schools but must support 10,000 former cops who have retired before age 50.

California can’t afford new water projects, but state cops often receive 90 percent of their salaries when they retire at 50. The average corrections officer there makes $70,000 a year in base salary and $100,000 with overtime (California spends more on its prison system than on its schools).

States across the nation will be paralyzed for the rest of our lives because they face unfunded pension obligations that, if counted accurately, amount to $2 trillion — or $87,000 per plan participant.

All in all, governments can’t promote future prosperity because they are strangling on their own self-indulgence.

Daniel DiSalvo, a political scientist at the City College of New York, has a superb survey of the problem in the new issue of National Affairs. DiSalvo notes that nationally, state and local workers earn on average $14 more per hour in wages and benefits than their private sector counterparts. A city like Buffalo has as many public workers as it did in 1950, even though it has lost half its population.

These arrangements grew gradually. Through much of the 20th century, staunch liberals like Franklin Roosevelt opposed public sector unions. George Meany of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. argued that it is “impossible to bargain collectively with government.”

Private sector managers have to compete in the marketplace, so they have an incentive to push back against union requests. Ideally, some balance is found between the needs of workers and companies. Government managers possess a monopoly on their services and have little incentive to resist union demands. It would only make them unpopular.

In addition, public sector unions can use political power to increase demand for their product. DiSalvo notes that between 1989 ad 2004, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees was the biggest spender in American politics, giving $40 million to federal candidates. The largest impact is on low-turnout local elections. The California prison guard union recently sent a signal by spending $200,000 to defeat a state assemblyman who had tried to reduce costs.

In states across the country, elected leaders raise state employee salaries in the fat years and then are careful to placate the unions by raising future pension benefits in the lean ones. Even if cost-conscious leaders are elected, they find their hands tied by pension commitments and employee contracts.

The end result is sclerotic government. Many of us would be happy to live with a bigger version of 1950s government: one that ran surpluses and was dexterous enough to tackle long-term problems as they arose. But we don’t have that government. We have an immobile government that is desperately overcommitted in all the wrong ways.

This situation, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, has been the Democratic Party’s epic failure. The party believes in the positive uses of government. But if you want the country to share that belief, you have to provide a government that is nimble, tough-minded and effective. That means occasionally standing up to the excessive demands of public employee unions. Instead of standing up to those demands, the party has become captured by the unions. Liberal activism has become paralyzed by its own special interests.

The antigovernment-types perpetually cry less, less, less. The loudest liberals cry more, more, more. Someday there will be a political movement that is willing to make choices, that is willing to say “this but not that.”

Someday.
==========