Obama says expect change? I don't see it Options

[Tung]

I don't know man. The people he's choosing for his cabinet is very questionable. I would like to focus on how and why he is picking his cabinet, on the one hand, from different constituencies but, on the other, how he is tapping primarily Clintonites who were responsible for deregulation and the economic catastrophe now upon us.

I don't know if you guys been reading up on what's going on, but I just feel Obama's economic policies and "plan" is going to backfire, and I really expect an economic catastrophe in 2009. There's already a projected 300,000+ jobs being laid off, in just California alone I believe. I was also reading up on this study that they did on Black Friday. They interview alot of people, and most of them said Black Friday was the first time they went shopping in the whole month of November. They furthermore said, they won't be shopping for a while, and already got their Christmas shopping done. What does that mean? Economy will suffer greatly this month, than in the past years. This means business won't be good. =\

Anyways, I'm questioning Obama's choices for his cabinet.

[brooklyneast05]

well i guess it's going to be all how you define change. if you compare obama's picks vs. bush's administration then it's change. i'm ok with his picks to be honest and i'm glad he's picking with a lot of diversity. polls supposedly show the majority of people have favorable opinions of his picks so far, specifically clinton and gates. there was some backlash to him putting on richardson and i was watching people ask if that was a consultation prize for the hispanic community which, eh, i can see them feeling that sort of considering they were probably expecting secretary of state or something considering his record.

i'm pretty sure it can be argued, and bill has, whether his deregulation caused the current problems. i'm doubtful.


regardless, it's hard to balance change with the need for people who know what they are doing though. change in it's purest form is...impractical, at least in a lot of these jobs we're talking about here.

[hi-C]

In all fairness, he hasn't taken office yet. Give him a chance to institute some policies before criticizing him on change.

EDIT: I WANTED RICHARDSON FOR SECRETARY OF STATE SO FREAKIN BAD.

[*cakedout*]

dont worry, chances are his first actions are going to concern the economy.

[*paperplane*]

Well, I don't think that if there's an economic catastrophe in 2009 it'll be his fault. It seems pretty inevitable.

And as far as the cabinet goes, in order to achieve change, you have to have people who know how to go about implementing it. Jimmy Carter brought in a lot of outsiders, and that failed. At least that's the best way I've heard it put. I haven't had the time to read up on this stuff as much as I'd like.

[espressive]

I was also reading up on this study that they did on Black Friday. They interview alot of people, and most of them said Black Friday was the first time they went shopping in the whole month of November. They furthermore said, they won't be shopping for a while, and already got their Christmas shopping done. What does that mean? Economy will suffer greatly this month, than in the past years. This means business won't be good. =\

Yeah, I've been actually watching the news for once cause the economics part is really interesting: A few weeks prior, people were blaming the decline of the economy on Black Friday, saying that consumers weren't spending money because they wanted to wait until everything went on sale that day. The projected theory was that Black Friday would instigate economy growth due to the volume of consumer spending (as those of you who went shopping would know). However, interestingly enough, businesses didn't actually profit that much from Black Friday. But now, everybody finished all their Christmas shopping at 50% off, so there is once again, a decline in consumer spending. So yeah, pretty much what you said :-p

I think the low profits of Black Friday had to do with the fact that people consciously bought only what was needed instead of going on a shopping free, especially since the economy is tanking. The lure of Black Friday is the discounted items, which the business may not profit from (so the price they sell it is less than the price the business paid for it). But the key concept is that the appeal of the sales bring consumers into the store; the hope of the businesses is that once the consumers are in the store, they are more willing to spend more money on other items - items that the business will profit from. Since people bought minimal items, on a need-basis, the businesses only profited slightly (if at all). I don't know if that makes any sense, but that's just what I think. Economics is not my forte. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[fameONE]

In all fairness, he hasn't taken office yet. Give him a chance to institute some policies before criticizing him on change.

[brooklyneast05]

(CNN) — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is withdrawing his nomination as Commerce Secretary, two Democratic officials told CNN's Ed Henry.

i'm confused


edit:

ok i'm less confused. my christmas break break from being overly obsessed with the news had left me out of the loop.

[firechild]

In all fairness, he hasn't taken office yet. Give him a chance to institute some policies before criticizing him on change.

dont worry, chances are his first actions are going to concern the economy.

as it should be

and being president doesn't make you immune to mistakes.

This post has been edited by mipadi: Jan 4 2009, 05:18 PM

Reason for edit: Fixed broken BBCode

[LittleMissSunshi...]

if you think about it, Obama isn't going to change the U.S so quickly. It's going to get bad before it gets good. I mean Obama can't change the economical country in just 1 year. Bush messed it up, and everyone thinks Obama is going to change everything so quickly, he's not because you can't fix 8 years of mess in just a short amount of time. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

a lot of people will be upset and they'll think Obama isn't suited for president and they regret voting for him. but in reality it's just the way it is, if it was Mccain who would have won, it would still be bad, and might even be worse in the future. in either case, we don't know what's going to happen, it's all just bad stuff cause of the economy.

[mipadi]

if you think about it, Obama isn't going to change the U.S so quickly. It's going to get bad before it gets good. I mean Obama can't change the economical country in just 1 year. Bush messed it up, and everyone thinks Obama is going to change everything so quickly, he's not because you can't fix 8 years of mess in just a short amount of time. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

I don't think we can blame the economic troubles on Bush. I'm of the opinion that the US president rarely influences the economy a great deal, for better or for worse. There are a lot of factors that affect the economy; the failure was due more to corporate greed than anything the President did.

Where Bush screwed up, however, was in his unconditional bailout of the financial industry. That was a bad idea. Furthermore, it's at odds with his own policies. The eight years of the Bush administration has been marked by intense deregulation and a laissez-faire approach to business, yet ultimately Bush (and, to be fair, Congress) just involved the government in business big-time. What's ironic is that during the election campaign, the right-wing accused Obama of being a socialist, yet our right-wing President authorized the bailing out of an entire industry. What's it called when the government owns the means of production? Oh, right: socialism.

[mipadi]

From The New York Times (which is a shitty newspaper, but I digress):

“If we don’t act swiftly and boldly,” declared President-elect Barack Obama in his latest weekly address, “we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” If you ask me, he was understating the case.

The fact is that recent economic numbers have been terrifying, not just in the United States but around the world. Manufacturing, in particular, is plunging everywhere. Banks aren’t lending; businesses and consumers aren’t spending. Let’s not mince words: This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.

[...]

News reports say that Democrats hope to pass an economic plan with broad bipartisan support. Good luck with that.

In reality, the political posturing has already started, with Republican leaders setting up roadblocks to stimulus legislation while posing as the champions of careful Congressional deliberation — which is pretty rich considering their party’s behavior over the past eight years.

More broadly, after decades of declaring that government is the problem, not the solution, not to mention reviling both Keynesian economics and the New Deal, most Republicans aren’t going to accept the need for a big-spending, F.D.R.-type solution to the economic crisis.

The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts.

This is a problem with which Keynes was familiar: giving money away, he pointed out, tends to be met with fewer objections than plans for public investment “which, because they are not wholly wasteful, tend to be judged on strict ‘business’ principles.” What gets lost in such discussions is the key argument for economic stimulus — namely, that under current conditions, a surge in public spending would employ Americans who would otherwise be unemployed and money that would otherwise be sitting idle, and put both to work producing something useful.

[...]

So this is our moment of truth. Will we in fact do what’s necessary to prevent Great Depression II?

[*KINGdinguhling*]

I don't think we can blame the economic troubles on Bush. I'm of the opinion that the US president rarely influences the economy a great deal, for better or for worse. There are a lot of factors that affect the economy; the failure was due more to corporate greed than anything the President did.

Where Bush screwed up, however, was in his unconditional bailout of the financial industry. That was a bad idea. Furthermore, it's at odds with his own policies. The eight years of the Bush administration has been marked by intense deregulation and a laissez-faire approach to business, yet ultimately Bush (and, to be fair, Congress) just involved the government in business big-time. What's ironic is that during the election campaign, the right-wing accused Obama of being a socialist, yet our right-wing President authorized the bailing out of an entire industry. What's it called when the government owns the means of production? Oh, right: socialism.

To be fair, I believe it was china that demanded 700 Billion be paid to them immediately. Of course, this was just a rumor I had and am taking no credit for saying or claiming I said it.

[mipadi]

To be fair, I believe it was china that demanded 700 Billion be paid to them immediately. Of course, this was just a rumor I had and am taking no credit for saying or claiming I said it.

Is that a joke?

[*KINGdinguhling*]

[sammehmyst]

it takes time.. he's not even the pres yet, we can't expect him to take the wrench of america and fix everything in a few tweaks ;)

and the projected jobs being laid off have been happening for a while now.. i mean, i'm not going to try to advertise economic standpoints, but i mean.. i'm planning on keeping my hopes up and giving him a chance, ya' know? we haven't seen much yet!

[Amaranthus]

Damn, can't a sit in his office before being blamed for not changing anything?

[digitalfragrance]

I'm having problems with his CIA nomination - Leon Panetta... the man has experience with Federal Budget, not Intelligence.

Problem? I think so. I sure hope the reason he chose him becomes more obvious.

[hi-C]

^ He was also Clinton's chief of staff and was a long time member of the House of Representatives.

[mipadi]

I'm having problems with his CIA nomination - Leon Panetta... the man has experience with Federal Budget, not Intelligence.

Problem? I think so. I sure hope the reason he chose him becomes more obvious.

You're absolutely right. I want a person with more experience kidnapping and torturing foreign nationals, damn it.

[hi-C]

Hey y'all, can you talk about Panetta in this thread? http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=215480 There're only two posts in it and I think it feels lonely.

[mipadi]

You don't seriously get your news from YouTube, do you?

China didn't demand payment. That's now how it works. The issue that the Congressman is discussing is that the bailout money might go to help companies with heavy foreign investment.