·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

Change revisted

by thesumofyourfears | Published on January 13th, 2009, 2:45 pm | News
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”

Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.

Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama’s plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the U.S. lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.

Indicators

“Whether it’s retail sales, manufacturing, all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression,” Obama said on ABC. The result is that all Americans will feel the effects of efforts to put the economy back on track, he said.

“Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” he said.

Companies including Boeing Co., the world’s second-largest commercial-plane maker, CSX Corp., the third- largest U.S. railroad, and General Dynamics Corp., the second-largest shipbuilder for the U.S. Navy, announced job cuts last week.

The Standard and Poor’s 500 Index has lost 37 percent in the past 12 months and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 33 percent.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, faced a similar predicament. In the face of a deepening budget deficit, Clinton during his transition scaled back his spending plans and abandoned a campaign pledge to enact a middle-class tax cut.

Report on Plan

Obama yesterday released a report by his economic advisers that forecasts his two-year stimulus proposal would generate as many as 4 million jobs, higher than his previous estimates, the biggest portion of them in construction, manufacturing and retail.

The plan would also result in the U.S. gross domestic product increasing by 3.7 percent more by the end of 2010 than it would without the stimulus, according to a study compiled by Obama’s economic advisers. The study gives a forecast based on a package of spending and tax cuts totaling “slightly over” the $775 billion that has been discussed by the transition team with members of Congress.

Even with the GDP improvement forecast in the report, the unemployment rate is forecast to be about 7 percent, according to its authors Christina Romer, the president-elect’s pick to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic policy director for Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Construction Jobs

The single biggest job gains would be in construction, according to the report, with 678,000 created by the fourth quarter of 2010. Another 604,000 jobs would be created or saved in the retail sector and 408,000 in manufacturing.

Most of the jobs created by government spending on infrastructure, education, health and energy would come in 2010 and 2011 because of the time it would take to carry out programs in those areas, the report said.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the recession and government outlays for bailouts will push the budget deficit to at least $1.18 trillion this fiscal year. Obama said Jan. 6 that he expects similar shortfalls “for years to come.”

Some congressional Democrats have criticized the portion of the plan devoted to tax cuts, while Republicans have voiced concern about the size of the proposal and its effect on the deficit.

Bailout Plan

Part of the increase in the deficit estimate stems from the $700 billion financial market’s bailout plan approved by Congress last year.

Obama said that he is “disappointed with how the whole TARP process has unfolded,” including insufficient oversight. He also said not enough has been done to help those facing home foreclosures.

Obama said he intends to “lay out very specifically” ways that he would spend the next $350 billion. “We can regain the confidence of both Congress and the American people that this is not just money that is being given to banks without any strings attached and nobody knows what happens, but rather that it is targeted very specifically at getting credit flowing again to businesses and families.”

He declined to say whether he wants President George W. Bush to request from Congress access to the second half of the money before Inauguration Day.

Among the campaign promises that may be delayed is his vow to quickly close the prison camp at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” Obama said, adding that he still plans to shut down the facility, used to detain enemy combatants suspected of being terrorists.

Foreign Policy

On foreign policy, Obama again declined to be drawn into a substantive discussion of the new violence between the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Pressed on his silence on the issue, Obama said the escalating conflict “makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades.”

He said he is putting together a team that will ensure his administration is “immediately engaged” in the Middle East peace process right after he’s sworn in.

“The politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence wants to see a fair and just outcome.”

Obama said Iran “is going to be one of our biggest challenges,” and said some form of engagement with Tehran was “the place to start.”

While his administration will be willing to talk, there will have to be “clarity about what our bottom lines are,” he said, without giving details.

To contact the reporter on this story: Edwin Chen in Washington at [email protected].

Last Updated: January 11, 2009 10:26 EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... YMkstD3JzA

typical democrat bait and switch
 
 
thesumofyourfears wrote:
typical democrat bait and switch



Whatever man. A lot of people and businesses are changing their outlook and planning for '09 based on unforeseen circumstances and financial matters. Why would Govt. be any different? Yeah, I think I'd rather them focus on the big stuff first if its all the same. Either Party would have done this.
"You can't put the civil rights of a minority up for a majority vote."
January 13th, 2009, 2:49 pm
User avatar
Sanjuro
Expert...on everything...
 
I think he's complaining that the promised spending he was complaining about before, will be cut back to precomplaining levels and that he won't have anything to complain about.


But I expect he'll complain anyway
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
January 13th, 2009, 3:36 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:I think he's complaining that the promised spending he was complaining about before, will be cut back to precomplaining levels and that he won't have anything to complain about.

But I expect he'll complain anyway

And had McCain been elected, he would be doing pretty much the same thing -- but Fear-boy would be singing his praises.
January 13th, 2009, 3:52 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
...and the three stooges and the msm would be ripping into McCain day and night had he been elected done the same thing.
January 13th, 2009, 4:53 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
A Person wrote:I think he's complaining that the promised spending he was complaining about before, will be cut back to precomplaining levels and that he won't have anything to complain about.


But I expect he'll complain anyway


its called dissenting opinion...

dude, it was your side of the isle that has ripped the republican controlled Congress for the debt...now your messiah dumbama wants to spend even more money...it is called double standard. The democrat controlled Congress since Nov 06-Jan07 has not done anything to control spending and debt. To democrats, it as all about power. Just ask Queen Bitch Pelosi.
January 13th, 2009, 5:30 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
A Person wrote:I think he's complaining that the promised spending he was complaining about before, will be cut back to precomplaining levels and that he won't have anything to complain about.

But I expect he'll complain anyway

And had McCain been elected, he would be doing pretty much the same thing -- but Fear-boy would be singing his praises.



How convenient of you to give your dumbama messiah a free pass.
January 13th, 2009, 5:34 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
thesumofyourfears wrote:its called dissenting opinion...
I think you'll find it's called wild, uncontrolled ranting. The 'queen bitch' gives it away.
January 13th, 2009, 5:52 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:
thesumofyourfears wrote:its called dissenting opinion...
I think you'll find it's called wild, uncontrolled ranting. The 'queen bitch' gives it away.


I would hardly call it an uncontrolled rant, but that is how a foaming-at-the-mouth hard leftist like you would view it.
January 13th, 2009, 6:52 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
Foaming at the mouth? Check. I'm enjoying a Pilsner Urquell right now

Hard? Semi-rigid at the present, but I expect things to improve.

Leftist? Margaret Thatcher would be left of you, McCain on the far left. I doubt there are many people to the right, other than Sean, Anne, Joe and Sarah.
January 13th, 2009, 9:27 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:Foaming at the mouth? Check. I'm enjoying a Pilsner Urquell right now

Hard? Semi-rigid at the present, but I expect things to improve.

Leftist? Margaret Thatcher would be left of you, McCain on the far left. I doubt there are many people to the right, other than Sean, Anne, Joe and Sarah.


Pilsner Urquell? I've been to Canada a few times and tried it...great brew. However, I admired M. Thatcher, especially when she reigned during the RR years..but not all that excited about McCain; he's not RR...so, it appears you have a myopic view of people who disagree with you. Then again, that is to be expected of those of you on the hard left and that think you are God's gift to the world.
January 13th, 2009, 10:00 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
thesumofyourfears wrote:"that is to be expected of those of you on the hard left and that think you are God's gift to the world.


LOL! B-I-N-G-O!! You hit the nail on the head. :text-+1:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
January 14th, 2009, 12:28 pm
User avatar
BecauseHeLives
 
Oh yes, people who don't believe in God really hate him and think that they are his gift to the world. That is what passes for logic.

What ScarySums is saying agrees with my post. He likes Thatcher, but McCain is way too far left for him. So far from being myopic, my vision was spot on. In his world, anyone outside the immediate circle of Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Joe, O'Reilly is just a fuzzy blob of 'hard leftists'. No wonder those nails look straight to you.

bentnails.jpg
bentnails.jpg (7.54 KiB) Viewed 758 times
January 14th, 2009, 12:46 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
A Person wrote:Oh yes, people who don't believe in God really hate him and think that they are his gift to the world. That is what passes for logic.

What ScarySums is saying agrees with my post. He likes Thatcher, but McCain is way too far left for him. So far from being myopic, my vision was spot on. In his world, anyone outside the immediate circle of Hannity, Coulter, Palin, Joe, O'Reilly is just a fuzzy blob of 'hard leftists'. No wonder those nails look straight to you.

bentnails.jpg


...yet you whore/otherwise twist Christianity/the Bible to propogate your leftist AGENDA that Jesus was a socialist...what a crock of bs you and your ilk spew.
January 14th, 2009, 2:33 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
Really, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, ever expects an elected official to follow through on EVERYTHING they promised while running for the office, I'd judge that person an incredibly gullible person. Even if your guy's better than the other guy, they promise overly optimistic things to tell people what they WANT to do, not what they'll be able to do. That's just how the government works, and it's just how the world works.
January 14th, 2009, 4:05 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
thesumofyourfears wrote:
A Person wrote:
thesumofyourfears wrote:its called dissenting opinion...
I think you'll find it's called wild, uncontrolled ranting. The 'queen bitch' gives it away.


I would hardly call it an uncontrolled rant, but that is how a foaming-at-the-mouth hard leftist like you would view it.


Let me ask you, dude, what exactly is the deal with the "Queen Bitch" BS, anyway? I can understand you not agreeing with her, not liking her, but does it really have to devolve into derogatory name-calling? Does that encourage productive discussion?
January 14th, 2009, 4:08 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
HOPOMaster wrote:Really, if anyone, and I mean ANYONE, ever expects an elected official to follow through on EVERYTHING they promised while running for the office, I'd judge that person an incredibly gullible person. Even if your guy's better than the other guy, they promise overly optimistic things to tell people what they WANT to do, not what they'll be able to do. That's just how the government works, and it's just how the world works.


piss poor try, hopo. If McCain had won, and said the same thing as Obama ( first of all making silly promises based on silly rhetoric and emotions don't fly), then you would be raking him over the coals, just as you and the rest of have done here... so don' t try to play innocent choir boy with me, because it will not fly. What do you think the MSM and this board has been doing since its inception?
January 14th, 2009, 4:20 pm
User avatar
thesumofyourfears
Freedom Lover
 
thesumofyourfears wrote:piss poor try, hopo. If McCain had won, and said the same thing as Obama ( first of all making silly promises based on silly rhetoric and emotions don't fly), then you would be raking him over the coals, just as you and the rest of have done here... so don' t try to play innocent choir boy with me, because it will not fly. What do you think the MSM and this board has been doing since its inception?


Oh, for the love of puppies, don't try to tell me what I would and wouldn't say, because I don't think you've got any idea what I'm thinking. You don't know me, you just read a couple of lines by me whenever you start complaining. :evil:

To be totally honest, I'd be saying the exact same thing if it was McCain ("nobody ever comes through with all their election promises," is a reasonable blanket statement) only I'd have a *bit* more cynicism, seeing as how McCain still wouldn't have gained back my trust after selling himself out in the election (oh, darn, there I go raking him over the coals AGAIN!).

Now, respond to my other post and try starting a reasonable discussion instead of pointless ranting about how "HE PWOMISED DIFFERENT! HA-HA!" Or maybe respond to someone else's comments in a manner besides "you'd be treating my guy differently!" which implies a double standard for which you have no proof aside from the stereotype of the uber-liberal pundit.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that McCain probably wouldn't be saying the exact same thing as Obama would be saying, since they had radically different ideas on how to handle politics. And I might or might not like it, I will freely admit. So, there. :P
January 14th, 2009, 4:34 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
HOPOMaster wrote: Does that encourage productive discussion?

What on EARTH makes you think FearSum is interested in that!? :shock:
January 14th, 2009, 5:00 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Okay, so you seem to want me to respond in a more substantive way to what you have cited, so I'll take some time. Why not, ,it's a slow work day.

thesumofyourfears wrote:Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said reviving the U.S. economy will require scaling back on his campaign promises and personal sacrifice from all Americans.

I stand by my assessment that all elected officials have to scale back once they're elected. I seem to remember that President Bush campaigned on being a Uniter, not a decide - err... divider. We all see how that worked out.
“I want to be realistic here, not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace we had hoped,” Obama said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” program broadcast this morning. “Everybody’s going to have to give.”

I think he also said that Americans would have to make sacrifices to make things better during the campaign a number of times, but you will certainly correct me if I'm mistaken.
Obama also said in the interview recorded yesterday that he wants stricter guidelines and greater transparency in spending the remaining $350 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

No problem with this, hopefully, since the bailout was just going into effect during the election season, and the lack of oversight didn't come up until Congress realized they weren't getting the whole story from the banks. I actually applaud oversight on this sort of program, it should have been there from the start.
Obama takes office Jan. 20 and is pressing Congress to act quickly on a two-year economic stimulus plan of about $775 billion that includes new government spending and tax cuts. As part of his campaign to build support from lawmakers and the public, Obama has been speaking about the economy every day over the past week, warning of a deeper and more prolonged recession without government action.

Is this an objection? Because it seems to me that allocating increased government funding to lob another grenade at the recession is exactly what he would do. And assuming the money's used in the right way, it should be the right course of action.
Though some Democrats have resisted elements of Obama’s plan, recent economic data have helped him make his point. The Labor Department reported Jan. 9 that the U.S. lost almost 2.6 million jobs in 2008 and that the unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent in December, the highest level in almost 16 years. The losses were widespread, with manufacturers, builders, retailers and temporary-help agencies axing positions.

Well, he DID say things would get worse before they get better. The point is that with correct action, things will get better.
“Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game,” he said.

See the above comments. I'm not seeing a change in policy yet.
The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, faced a similar predicament. In the face of a deepening budget deficit, Clinton during his transition scaled back his spending plans and abandoned a campaign pledge to enact a middle-class tax cut.

See, that's the thing with actions. For one thing, you can't criticize them BEFORE they've been made. For another thing, Clinton may have done it, but the most recent thing I heard was that the stimulus plan that Obama's putting together still has those tax-cuts in place. No campaign promise breaking here.
Obama yesterday released a report by his economic advisers that forecasts his two-year stimulus proposal would generate as many as 4 million jobs, higher than his previous estimates, the biggest portion of them in construction, manufacturing and retail.

The plan would also result in the U.S. gross domestic product increasing by 3.7 percent more by the end of 2010 than it would without the stimulus, according to a study compiled by Obama’s economic advisers. The study gives a forecast based on a package of spending and tax cuts totaling “slightly over” the $775 billion that has been discussed by the transition team with members of Congress.

Ummm, how are these things to criticize? Job production and GDP increase? Are you maybe reading out of the wrong report?
Even with the GDP improvement forecast in the report, the unemployment rate is forecast to be about 7 percent, according to its authors Christina Romer, the president-elect’s pick to head the White House Council of Economic Advisers, and Jared Bernstein, economic policy director for Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Right, and I've heard the unemployment could go even higher, some say into the double digits. Unfortunately, that's part of what a recession is. Don't think you can blame that on Obama. I think you just like complaining.
The Congressional Budget Office forecast that the recession and government outlays for bailouts will push the budget deficit to at least $1.18 trillion this fiscal year. Obama said Jan. 6 that he expects similar shortfalls “for years to come.”

I heard this discussed some time back, where the concern was voiced that the increased spending from the stimulus would increase the deficit, and the consensus of the guests was that even though it would increase the deficit, it's better to stabilize the economy and country first, then worry about the deficit once things are back to a slightly more sane state.
Obama said he intends to “lay out very specifically” ways that he would spend the next $350 billion. “We can regain the confidence of both Congress and the American people that this is not just money that is being given to banks without any strings attached and nobody knows what happens, but rather that it is targeted very specifically at getting credit flowing again to businesses and families.”

He declined to say whether he wants President George W. Bush to request from Congress access to the second half of the money before Inauguration Day.

Dude, what are you complaining about? Increased oversight to ensure that money is spent correctly and not making demands on the still-executive chief isn't exactly a bad thing, now is it?
Among the campaign promises that may be delayed is his vow to quickly close the prison camp at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” Obama said, adding that he still plans to shut down the facility, used to detain enemy combatants suspected of being terrorists.

I could care less how long it takes to get it shut down as long as it is, and it's done right, to ensure that the rights of the prisoners are taken into account (HUMAN rights, mind you, not necessarily rights from the American Constitution, although that would be one possible way of looking at it.
On foreign policy, Obama again declined to be drawn into a substantive discussion of the new violence between the Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Israel. Pressed on his silence on the issue, Obama said the escalating conflict “makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades.”

Now, did he say anything specific about Israel and Gaza aside from him being a "friend of Israel"? I think he's siding with a broad viewpoint that the conflict is undesirable, and since Israel is the invading country at this point, he doesn't want to say anything critical of Israel.
Obama said Iran “is going to be one of our biggest challenges,” and said some form of engagement with Tehran was “the place to start.”

Now, if he is, in fact, referring to a military engagement, then yes, this does bother me. He's already got one quagmire to tend to, he doesn't need to start another one. Especially with another rich, major oil producing country who's determined to get the Bomb.
typical democrat bait and switch

I swear, aside from the Iran thing, I can't really see what you're complaining about in terms of "bait and switch." He's tried to be hopeful, but realistically hopeful from the instant it was realized that he could potentially win it all. None of this seems out of line with his expected actions or his campaign promises, they merely acknowledge the reality of each situation and the desire for many people to have instant gratification.
January 14th, 2009, 5:07 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
HOPOMaster wrote: Does that encourage productive discussion?

What on EARTH makes you think FearSum is interested in that!? :shock:


Hope for change?
January 14th, 2009, 5:08 pm
User avatar
HOPOMaster
 
HOPOMaster wrote:Oh, for the love of puppies, don't try to tell me what I would and wouldn't say, because I don't think you've got any idea what I'm thinking. You don't know me, you just read a couple of lines by me whenever you start complaining.

But you're one of those elitist, hard left, foaming at the mouth, liberal intellectuals, who deny the achievements of Real Conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Anne Coulter. He knows EXACTLY what you would have said so don't try to pretend otherwise.
January 14th, 2009, 5:09 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
thesumofyourfears wrote:...yet you whore/otherwise twist Christianity/the Bible to propogate your leftist AGENDA that Jesus was a socialist...what a crock of bs you and your ilk spew.

Image
January 17th, 2009, 10:55 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Sanjuro wrote:
thesumofyourfears wrote:
typical democrat bait and switch



Whatever man. A lot of people and businesses are changing their outlook and planning for '09 based on unforeseen circumstances and financial matters. Why would Govt. be any different? Yeah, I think I'd rather them focus on the big stuff first if its all the same. Either Party would have done this.

Since when has the economy ever been forseen? You had to plan for the unseen never was there a mention of any cut backs until now.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
June 6th, 2010, 1:48 pm
User avatar
bigrebnc1861
 
Location: kannapolis North Carolina

Return to News