Mmmmm, Toasted Obama: My Favorite!

From James Pethokoukis at Reuters in response to Goldman Sachs lowering GDP projections:

…Alarms bells must be ringing all over Obamaland today. Unemployment on Election Day about where it is right now? Sputtering — if not stalling — economic growth? To many Americans that would sound like the car is back in the ditch — if it was ever out. Maybe Goldman is wrong, but economists across Wall Street have been growing more bearish.

And recall that back in August of 2009, the White House — after having a half year to view the economy and its $800 billion stimulus response — made an astoundingly optimistic (PDF) forecast. Starting in 2011, with Obamanomics fully in gear and the recession over, growth would take off. GDP would rise 4.3 percent in 2011, followed by … 4.3 percent growth in 2012 and 2013, too!  And 2014? Another year of 4.0 percent growth. Off to the races, America…

Do take a look at that “astoundingly optimistic” White House forecast – as far as Obama and Co were concerned, the stimulus was going to get us rip roaring in to boom economic times.  It is all there – carefully laid our projections about how wonderful things were going to be.  I can only guess that they really believed it – after all, they were being rather arrogant in their assumptions of 2012 victory back there when questions first arose about the effects of the stimulus.  Only people who really believed in it could have looked at the 2010 data and assumed that 2011 would have 4.3% GDP growth (if we’re lucky – very lucky – we’ll see official growth at 2.5% for the year 2011; which is not nearly enough to get things rolling).  The big question:  do they still believe it?

As Pethokoukis notes at the end of his article, there is still a very short time left for Obama to change course and have a chance at a reasonably good economy for election day, 2012.  But I mean he’d really have to move fast – in the next few weeks we’d have to see serious proposals to cut the tax and regulatory burden on wealth creation for it to have a noticeable positive effect by election day.  Wait until the end of August and it will be too late – the good news would start to roll in around January of 2013, just as we’re swearing in President Bachmann.  But if they are still retaining their faith in the stimulus, then they’ll do nothing and just cross there fingers that some how, some way, what has thus-far failed will start to work in an astounding manner over the next 15 months.

And if that is the case, then the good news is that Obama won’t be re-elected – the bad news is that the economy will be very much worse before we get rid of him.

 

39 thoughts on “Mmmmm, Toasted Obama: My Favorite!

  1. Cluster July 17, 2011 / 9:37 am

    Do take a look at that “astoundingly optimistic” White House forecast

    That’s nothing. Do you not remember Pelosi proclaiming that the passage of Obamacare would create 400,000 jobs immediately?

    What do you expect from people that have never worked a private sector job in their life? Their entire worldview is based on theories and dissertations. None of them have any real world experience, and it shows. This is absolutely the most incompetent and inexperienced regime ever to govern our country, and they are creating one hell of a mess.

  2. LoveAlaska July 17, 2011 / 10:38 am

    The best part of the article was where it said “Obama WILL NOT be reelected.” Enough said. Like McConnell said the other day, until this guy is gone; there won’t be any recovery. Is that simple enough?

  3. Amazona July 17, 2011 / 11:12 am

    Worth a repeat:

    A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

    A depression is when you lose your job.

    Recovery is when Obama loses his job.

    • neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 11:20 am

      Recovery is when Obama loses his job.

      remember these cretins are the masters of cheating to “win” elections.Lets not celebrate too soon.

      • bardolf July 17, 2011 / 12:01 pm

        How about putting forward a non-generic candidate to do the winning.

        Is the underlying premise that Obama is also keeping Europe and Japan from an economic recovery? That he is responsible for the inflation in China? That government is responsible for job creation and not the market?

        What regulations/taxes will Mitt Romney undo to get the economy running again precisely?

        Ron Paul 2012!

      • neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 12:06 pm

        mitt romney = juan mcLame 2

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 3:47 pm

        Is the underlying premise that Obama is also keeping Europe and Japan from an economic recovery? That he is responsible for the inflation in China? That government is responsible for job creation and not the market?

        Why do you ask? Did someone say that? Is it in the thread post?

      • bardolf July 17, 2011 / 6:20 pm

        Amazona said ‘Recovery is when Obama loses his job’

        There are a lot of countries in a recession and have high unemployment. Spain currently has 20% e.g.

        Amazona believes that when Obama is out of office there will be a recovery. Somehow an unknown presidential candidate from the GOP (part of big government) will do something to kickstart ‘THE RECOVERY’.

        Since I don’t believe the central government creates jobs, I was wondering why the curse of ‘Obama’ had influenced countries like Spain and Greece.

        FYI, there are countries which are more ‘socialistic’ and still maintaining reasonable growth.

  4. dennis July 17, 2011 / 12:21 pm

    It is astonishing the degree to which some people will scapegoat an appointed villain for woes that accumulate from a multitude of causes. It takes either a primitive and superstitious mind, or else one given over to irrational spite and hatred. The causes of the economic crisis involving much of the world have nothing whatever to do with Obama, nor do the employment numbers in the United States. It’s completely safe to say these conditions, which do have some relationship with each other, would prevail had McCain and Palin been elected in 2008, and a case may be made that if that had happened, things could be even worse.

    As for Amazona’s joke that recovery will happen when Obama loses his job, that’s a foolish assertion, and should you get your wish about Obama losing the next election it will be seen how absurd that linkage is.

    And as for McConnell’s contention that there won’t be any recovery until Obama is gone, the only thing that can be logically derived from that statement is that he will stand fully in the way of any remedies as long as Obama is the president. There is nothing patriotic or heroic about such a stand – it’s a true scoundrel who would see the country go to hell in a hand basket rather than raise one finger to help it, if there is the smallest chance his chosen scapegoat might receive a shred of credit.

    Real nice going from a bunch of Christian Americans. But then Christian America ain’t what it used to be.

    • Cluster July 17, 2011 / 12:30 pm

      it’s a true scoundrel who would see the country go to hell in a hand basket rather than raise one finger to help it, – dennis

      And that explains Obama to the letter. Tell us Dennis, how many of the spending programs that Obama has put in place over the last two years, are on the table for negotiating? Any of them? Obama has increased the debt by 35% himself, yet none of his his pet projects are open to being cut, including Obamacare, which truth be told, if it was repealed, would almost nearly resolve the debt crisis in and of itself.

      Furthermore, what specific debt reduction proposal has Obama, or any democrat for that matter, offered up? The short answer is none. No specifics, only generalities – why you ask? Because democrats are playing politics, forcing the GOP to offer specifics, of which they predictably ridicule and scorn. I can not wait until the boy child President is kicked out of office in 2012.

    • MontyBurns July 17, 2011 / 12:49 pm

      “the only thing that can be logically derived from that statement is that he will stand fully in the way of any remedies as long as Obama is the president. ”

      Logical derivation is entirely unnecessary; they’ve outright stated this.

      As for all this language of Mark’s:

      “Do take a look at that “astoundingly optimistic” forecast. It is all there – carefully laid our projections about how wonderful things were going to be. I can only guess that they really believed it…. The big question: Do they still believe it?”

      It applies perfectly to Paul Ryan’s plan full of magical unicorns that got this bunch all atwitter about how “serious” Ryan is. The big question is if they still believe it, and we’ve seen no evidence that they don’t.

      • Cluster July 17, 2011 / 1:39 pm

        Paul Ryan’s plan contained specifics, and grandfathered medicare recipients. Obama doesn’t even have a plan, but he is really good and leading people like you around by the nose, and directing you when to applaud, and when to scorn.

        You are so easily manipulated, that Obama doesn’t even need to offer up anything substantive, just deliver a good speech, and send tingles up liberals legs.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 3:56 pm

        No, Monty, no one actually ever did say he would “stand in the way of any remedies as long as Obama is in office”.

        This is what happens when people mistake personalities for political ideology.

        What is said is that the Right does not consider these suggestions to be “remedies” and will stand in their way because they do not solve the problems.

        So your statement is a lie.

        What is it about you people and your absolute inability to grasp the fact that there are two opposing views of the best way to govern the nation, and those who have one view are going to oppose the other view BECAUSE THEY DON’T THINK IT WILL WORK?

        You always have to reduce everything to personality, which is ridiculous. Opposition to the Left’s vision of the economic direction of the nation is opposition to the Left’s vision of the economic direction of the country, not to any person. It’s not emotion, it’s simply allegiance to an economic policy.

        And this allegiance is based on an objective analysis of which economic policies have, in the past, led to economic prosperity and which to economic misery.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:27 am

        “Paul Ryan’s plan contained specifics”

        Wow, you’re still seeing those starbursts, are you? Ryan’s plan rests on several ridiculous assumptions, not the least of which being that all government spending aside from Social Security and health care can be magically shrunk from 12 percent of the GDP to 3.5 percent.

        Oh, and by the way, Ryan’s plan also raises out-of-pocket costs for health care. But it also contains a litany of right-wing fantasies, so that’s all you need to hear. You’re easy like that.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:29 am

        “those who have one view are going to oppose the other view BECAUSE THEY DON’T THINK IT WILL WORK?”

        Is that what you think happened when Bush was president? Come on be consistent now.

        Oh, and considering that you say “objective analysis” is what put you ’round the birth certificate bend, your concept of “objective analysis” is horribly flawed, to say the least.

    • Rightlane July 17, 2011 / 1:38 pm

      “The causes of the economic crisis involving much of the world have nothing whatever to do with Obama, nor do the employment numbers in the United States. It’s completely safe to say these conditions, which do have some relationship with each other, would prevail had McCain and Palin been elected in 2008, and a case may be made that if that had happened, things could be even worse.”

      That’s the case your making isn’t it. I mean, you got nothing else. You have to make that case or admit your are and were wrong. It’s not a very convincing case though. Now the public sees unemployment numbers close to ten percent instead of the promised eight percent after spending trillions to create jobs that cost five and six figures each! I know, because it all you have, lets stimulate the economy again. That’ll fix it! Obama has nothing to do unemployment other than the fact he was elected to fix that very problem and has, to date, failed miserable.

      Blame Bush, that’s what Dan Savage was selling on Bill Maher’s show the other day. In-between, that is, reveling his desires to entertain Rick Santorum and wishing all conservatives dead. Savage’s, truly the voice of reason in liberal world filled with hate and chaos. That’s what you got and that’s what you’ll play. That, by the way is why you’ll lose.

      Things are not getting better. Things are getting worse. Even we poor dumb citizens have noticed the price of gas, groceries, and just about everything else, is moving higher, while our paychecks stay the same or we’ve lost them entirely. Now, you’re selling a tax hike? Good luck with that.

      • Rightlane July 17, 2011 / 1:58 pm

        Did we elect McCain? No. Is your cyrstal ball cracked? I don’t know, but I do know that what would have happened can’t be evaluated, because it didn’t happen. We can, however, evaluate what did happen and that is why you’ll lose.

    • Mark Noonan July 17, 2011 / 10:00 pm

      Dennis,

      The reason there won’t be a recovery while Obama is President is not because of GOP obstruction but because Obama is wedded to economic policies which don’t work. There is no way to get around that – unless Obama radically changes course, the economy cannot fully recover; and, in fact, may fall right back in to longer and worse recession than before.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:31 am

        “Obama is wedded to economic policies which don’t work.”

        You’re the one who wants to double down on the economic policies that failed so badly, they created this mess in the first place, so it’s pretty rich that you would lob the accusation at anybody else. But facts are not really in your realm, now, are they.

      • tiredoflibbs July 18, 2011 / 12:11 pm

        “You’re the one who wants to double down on the economic policies that failed so badly, they created this mess in the first place, so it’s pretty rich that you would lob the accusation at anybody else.”

        Ahhhhh, Monty dutifully regurgitates the “Blame Bush” talking point. He has included the “infamous” buzz words that Hillary, Reid, Pelosi etc. etc. has so repeated so often “double down” and “created this mess in the first place”. This is the talking point most frequently used to blame for the state of the economy before, during and after obAMATEUR’s failed policies that were supposed to have fixed it or “we need this right now or unemployment will rise above 8%” or “we had to do something or it would have been worse”.

        Then he drones on about facts when he has not presented any AGAIN – only rhetoric. Monty(jeffy) has the typical useful idiot drone mentality.

      • MontyBurns July 18, 2011 / 1:08 pm

        Way to run with the “it’s wrong to blame Bush for the negative consequences of things he did!” talking point, tired. I knew I could count on you to scream without actually saying anything.

  5. neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 12:25 pm

    dennistooge

    Real nice going from a bunch of Christian Americans. But then Christian America ain’t what it used to be.

    you are right, YOU wolves in sheeps clothing have crept in to the fold.

    • neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 2:01 pm

      President Demands ‘Massive, Job-killing Tax Increases’ and Dares Republicans to Call His Bluff
      By Clarice Feldman

      This was the kind of week where any self-respecting 2008 Obama supporter who had not yet yanked off his Obama-Biden Bumper sticker should have been in his garage scraping off that old Hope and Change.

      It began on Monday when he insisted on a “grand bargain” that would include , in his words, “massive , job-killing tax increases.” It was the first honest explanation of his economic plan but surely it was no surprise that his opponents found it an unappealing course of action.

      He also threatened that the government might not be able to make Social Security payments if the debt ceiling had not been lifted by August 2. Throwing granny to the wolves is a rather overdone theme by the Democrats, and in any event for a variety of reasons the threat vanished soon after it was made, largely because it was not credible.

      While most of the media reports continue to credit Obama with a good faith effort and parrot anonymous “insider” slams at the opposition, particularly Eric Cantor, Charles Krauthammer seems to have a clearer view of the president’s history respecting the U.S. budget:

      https://blogs4victory.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/mmmmm-toasted-obama-my-favorite/#comments

  6. dennis July 17, 2011 / 3:02 pm

    “Even we poor dumb citizens have noticed the price of gas, groceries, and just about everything else, is moving higher, while our paychecks stay the same or we’ve lost them entirely” – Rightlane.

    This is a problem with a poor dumb citizenry. They fail to notice corporate profits at historic highs, demand less regulation of those corporations and blame the designated scape goat while corporate profiteers laugh all the way to their offshore banks. Cluster, you’re fully signed on to the scape goat narrative. You haven’t the slightest inclination to look objectively at anything involving this president or the economic crisis.

    Of course the debt has increased under Obama. And without that $787 billion economic stimulus package in ’09, the employment numbers would be far worse than they are now. Some argue the stimulus wasn’t big enough, and they might be right.

    As for proportional debt increase, over eight years of G. W. Bush the debt nearly doubled from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to $10 trillion in 2008. Under Reagan, it nearly tripled – from $998 billion to $2.6 trillion. And neither of them entered office with the kind of economic crisis Obama faced on day one. Not to defend any of his specific policies, but this places Obama’s numbers in a more realistic context.

    You fail to acknowledge health care reform as anything more than Obi’s pet project, and suggest repealing it could resolve the debt crisis. That’s a whole nother conversation, but if you’re looking for simple fixes, simply keeping the promises that enabled Bush’s tax CUTS to be passed in the first place would resolve the deficit within a decade. However the GOP categorically refuses to consider adhering to the sunset provisions written into both of those temporary CUTS, and now melodramatically casts such a reversion to the norm as “the largest tax increase in history” and other such histrionics.

    As a percentage of the GDP, Americans’ tax burden in 2009 was lower than at any time since 1950. What Obama and many centrists favor is a compromise that incrementally raises revenues from those sectors where they would cause the least harm or personal suffering – but howls of “job killing”, “stealing money at the point of a gun” (Mark made this absurd claim yesterday) and name-calling (cretins, liars, cheaters, socialists etc) have drowned out rational discussion and poisoned the atmosphere so thoroughly that everything is at a standstill.

    • neocon1 July 17, 2011 / 3:09 pm

      dennistooge

      They fail to notice corporate profits at historic highs,

      GOOD, that helps EVERY ONES 401K, pensions, and stockholders.
      BUY some and quit with the leftist commie bitching.

    • Cluster July 17, 2011 / 3:37 pm

      Of course the debt has increased under Obama. And without that $787 billion economic stimulus package in ’09, the employment numbers would be far worse than they are now. – dennis

      That is absolute bullshit. Simply a talking point that dennis lays out as fact. The economy was worse in 1980, and Reagan, absent any stimulus, had manged to lower unemployment by three percentage points in his third year.

      …simply keeping the promises that enabled Bush’s tax CUTS to be passed in the first place would resolve the deficit within a decade. However the GOP categorically refuses to consider adhering to the sunset provisions written into both of those temporary CUTS, – dennis

      Allowing the top tax rate to go up by three points would do NOTHING to the debt – wouldn’t even dent it. But curiously, since democrats and liberals think the current tax rates are the problem, why didn’t they raise them when they controlled all three branches for the last two years. Why is that dennis, you ignorant troll. It is not a revenue problem son, it’s a spending problem.

      dennis, you simply have shit for brains as most liberals do, and it is time to defeat you and your ilk and relegate you to the short bus of life, where you belong.

      • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 4:07 pm

        What “promise”? Saying something CAN happen is far from PROMISING that it will.

    • Cluster July 17, 2011 / 3:41 pm

      dennis is the type of liberal that would argue the sky is green if Obama said it was. He is so heavily invested in this piece of shit president that there is no defense he wouldn’t mount to come to the rescue of his messiah.

      It’s pathological and disturbing. Liberals have really turned a dark corner.

    • Amazona July 17, 2011 / 4:06 pm

      dennis, please tell us how more regulation and more taxation of those eeeevil corporations will benefit the economy. How will they promote job creation?

      Or will you just be satisfied with the symbolism of savaging that vaguely sinister amorphous creation of “corporate profiteers laughing …” etc..

      Are you sure they are just laughing? Are you sure they are not cackling in malicious glee?

      Who ARE those “corporate profiteers” anyway? Uh-oh—-it turns out that they are pension funds, retirement accounts, the investments of millions of Americans not blinded by hysterical irrational loathing of “corporations”. DAMN those evil “profiteers”, using that money to retire on, to put their kids through college, or just to live on now that they no longer have jobs!

      But back to the question. Describe for us, please, how additional regulations will stimulate the economy and make it easier for businesses to create jobs. Remember, we need specific regulations so we can see for ourselves how they will help the economy. And, of course, we have to remember that they will only affect a small portion of the employment force, as something like 70% of all jobs in the US are in small business.

      But enough quibbling. Lay it on us.

      And then you can go into how increasing taxes will spur job creation.

    • Rightlane July 18, 2011 / 1:06 am

      Dennis, that’s a corporations job. You know, to make money and pay dividends to their shareholders. What did they call it…, oh yes, I remember now, increasing shareholder value. Who are their shareholders? We are. Those dirty rotten corporations are making us money! I understand your implied disdain for them now. Self-loathing is not an attractive attribute.

      It’s OK to make money legally. Invest in private enterprise and you are more likely than not to make a profit. Your investment will help create a job and that makes a new worker for you to tax. That worker can buy stocks as part of their 401K plan make money and complete the viscous, job creating, prosperity cycle. It’s a win win dude! We should encourage it.

  7. dennis July 17, 2011 / 5:39 pm

    Cluster, I don’t agree with Obama on many particulars, even fewer as time passes. But if he said the sky was green I’d make sure a tornado wasn’t coming before arguing. I lived in Texas as a kid and have seen green skies. And I won’t hang culpability on him for matters no single person has the power to cause, or condemn him for being unable to move a mountain without the necessary leverage of bipartisan cooperation.

    Of course there’s a spending problem. It’s why his proposals, rejected by House Republicans, have envisioned dramatically more spending cuts than revenue increases. It’s fascinating what the elements of compromise have come down to now. And what Republicans on Capitol Hill are rejecting:

    “The president is pushing greater spending cuts, and fewer tax increases, than the typical GOP voter wants.”

    http://theweek.com/article/index/217265/obamas-deficit-proposal-a-moderate-republican-plan

    Another nugget – my figures were off, but my general scenario wasn’t:

    If Congress takes no action in coming years, what will happen to the budget deficit? It will shrink – and shrink a lot. This simple fact may offer the best hope for deficit reduction….

    If Mr. Obama wins re-election, he could simply refuse to sign any budget-busting tax cut for the rich – who, after all, have received much larger pretax raises than any other income group in recent years and have also had their tax rates fall more. Republicans, for their part, could again refuse to pass any partial extension.

    And just like that, on Jan. 1, 2013, the Clinton-era tax rates would return.

    This change, by itself, would solve about 75 percent of the deficit problem over the next five years. The rest could come from spending cuts, both for social programs and the military…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/business/economy/13leonhardt.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1302782460-hyiNQIwPrzp4E5r2qcXZhQ

    Ama, does it make sense to demonize the president for “the price of gas, groceries, and just about everything else going up” while corporate profits are at an all-time high? I’m suggesting there are other places to look for blame, and conventional wisdom is to follow the money.

    As an aside, one also wonders why Eric Cantor has invested in 20+ year ultrashort US Treasury ETFs, as well as Barclays TIPS bond funds. I’m sure his whole portfolio is much more diverse than that, but what incentive do ultrashort ETFs give him for a solution to the debt crisis? In fact, both these investments reward him if the Treasury declines. And he’s one of the holdouts against Obama’s budget compromises? It’s been reported by both WSJ and kos and sure has the appearance of conflict of interest.

    • Amazona July 18, 2011 / 9:26 am

      dennis, anyone who can fall for the lie of “budget-busting tax cuts for the rich” IS probably going to read his own emotional basis for everything into commentary on the Obama administration economic policies and whine that he is being “demonized”.

      I understand that when every allegedly political decision is actually made from a position of emotion, it is impossible to understand that anyone else can make a truly political decision from a position of objective analysis.

      And this is where you have to have the will and the ability to step away from the emotion, strip away all the extraneous clutter, and get down to the most basic element of government: Which system do you think is better?

      One is the Constitutional system of small central government, severely limited size and scope of the federal government, free markets with minimal regulation (designed only to protect, not to advance specific agendas) and respect for private property.

      One is the Leftist system of a large and powerful central government which attempts to manage every aspect of the country. This system includes the Keynesian approach of manipulating fiscal policies to manage the economy.

      The Constitutional model believes that the role of the federal government is, basically, limited to one of protection of the citizens, and that issues which can be related to morality, such as charity, are the responsibility of the states, or of the people.

      The Leftist model believes that the central government has a responsibility to the citizens (and anyone else who lives here) which encompasses all aspects of life, including health care, food and housing, and financial support.

      The Constitutional model, which respects private property, believes that federal taxation should be limited to the minimum necessary to fund only the basic enumerated duties of the federal government.

      The Leftist model believes that the owner of private property (in this case, income) has the obligation to make this property available to the federal government for redistribution by the government, to achieve the goals listed above.

      When you understand the two basic and opposing political systems of the country, and you choose between them, then you can understand that if you have decided that one of them is the better way to run the country you will oppose the other because you think it is the worse way to run the country.

      Emotion has nothing to with it. “Demonizing” has nothing to do with it.

      In the case of the current economic crisis, conservatives believe that it has been brought about and then exacerbated by the veering away from the Constitutional model—-by members of both parties, by the way—-and the application of the Leftist model,

      If your sincere and objective analysis of the problem is that it has been caused and worsened by Leftist/Keynesian economic policies, which support the Leftist big-government model, then opposition to this and efforts to return to a Constitutional model are not based on dislike, “demonization” or any other emotional response.

    • Amazona July 18, 2011 / 9:30 am

      If corporate profits are cut, somehow, and shareholder earnings slashed, what benefit will that provide the economy?

  8. ragingbull July 17, 2011 / 7:33 pm

    dennis spends a lot of words to say that he knows nothing. but the first two sentences are an absolute gem:

    “It is astonishing the degree to which some people will scapegoat an appointed villain for woes that accumulate from a multitude of causes. It takes either a primitive and superstitious mind, or else one given over to irrational spite and hatred.”

    that sounded just like him from 2001 to 2009. that sounded just like every other lib that trolled here for the same duration.

  9. dennis July 18, 2011 / 2:02 am

    Rightlane: “Dennis, that’s a corporations job. You know, to make money and pay dividends to their shareholders.”

    Oh, and “the price of gas, groceries, and just about everything else is going up, so waaah…”

    So where do you fall, rightie? With the profit makers, or the complainers who are feeling gouged? Surely you understand those higher prices you’re bitching about result in higher dividends for shareholders. Right?

    And somehow it’s all Obama’s fault. For the higher prices, but not the shareholder profits. Man, you don’t make any sense at all.

    So tell me – if Treasuries tank after Cantor and his GOP buds trash everything Obama proposes, and he ends up making a killer profit on those ultrashort ETFs, is that legal profit? Or to further refine the question for your highly developed sensibilities, is it ethical profit? Or maybe I should just make it simple so you can’t miss what I’m asking: Is it a win win?

    • Amazona July 18, 2011 / 9:40 am

      So tell me – if Treasuries tank after Cantor and his GOP buds trash everything Obama proposes…

      Do you truly believe that the goal of “Cantor and his GOP ‘buds’ ” is to “tank” Treasuries? Really?

      Whew—talk about “demonization”!

      Have you considered the possibility that they simply believe the Leftist/Keynesian economic model is wrong, and are fighting to change it because they simply think it will continue to erode our economy?

      After all, they do have about 200 years of American economic prosperity under the Constitutional model to look at, and compare to the economic problems of Leftist nations where the government has tried to control the economy by manipulating fiscal policies.

      They do have the comparison of the growth and vigor of our American economy before we started to veer to the Left, enlarging both the size and scope of the federal government and allowing it to intervene in fiscal policies, with the results of those interventions and expansions.

      It’s not as if they have no reason to see the efforts to increase the influence of the Leftist/Keynesian model as the reason for our current problems.

      It appears that you are highly distraught at the efforts of these Constitutionalists to rein in policies you seem to favor. But it is odd that you see these efforts as malignant and driven by nothing but greed and some weird need to smack Obama down.

  10. Amazona July 18, 2011 / 9:43 am

    Unanswered questions for dennis, from yesterday:

    Describe for us, please, how additional regulations will stimulate the economy and make it easier for businesses to create jobs. Remember, we need specific regulations so we can see for ourselves how they will help the economy. And, of course, we have to remember that they will only affect a small portion of the employment force, as something like 70% of all jobs in the US are in small business.

    But enough quibbling. Lay it on us.

    And then you can go into how increasing taxes will spur job creation.

    • RetiredSpook July 18, 2011 / 11:53 am

      Amazona,

      You didn’t really expect Dennis to answer those questions, did you?

  11. dennis July 18, 2011 / 12:31 pm

    Ama and spook, protecting the lives of workers and ensuring the integrity of our institutions is what regulations are about, not creating new jobs. And I wouldn’t say we need more, but we need to enforce the ones that do work for both the people and the general economy.

    Like safety regulations. It was the systematic disregard of safety regulations by Massey, a huge and powerful company, that caused the Upper Big Branch mine explosion that killed 29 workers in West Virginia last year.

    Like oversight of financial institutions. The SEC is the nation’s primary defense against financial fraud, we need to make sure it is adequately funded to do the job it is mandated to do. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/budget-cuts-to-sec-reduce-its-effectiveness.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    There are just two examples – there are no shortage of others but I’ve got work to do, and cannot remedy your lack of awareness or concern.

    And no, I don’t think Cantor’s aim is particularly to tank Treasuries, but only to profit himself, in all ways possible.

Comments are closed.