Latest Column

rusty, this is a little irrelevant, but to me what Obama has accomplished is not being GW. I ask you, what in 8 years, did GW do that was right (and I don't mean right wing)?

Good, bad, or indifferent, what Obama does right the most is leave me reassured that we have a competent leader seeking courses of action, rather than a puppet with rabid right wingers dictating policy.

Aside from restoring confidence into markets after the worst loss-of-confidence in decades (yes, Bush deserves some credit for helping stabilize things with TARP, but Obama deserves most of the credit with his work on housing, the asset purchasing plan which was the start of the massive market rally that doubled the markets in a year, and publishing the stress tests which greatly restored the confidence in the banks and the market). As far as the economy goes, the two things that the President can do is get money flowing so small businesses can create jobs and restore confidence so that consumers buy products - direct job creation is near impossible as the Conservatives love pointing out whenever a Democrat is standing on a strong economy. Between all the items I listed above, he's achieved both objectives Keep in mind that in February, everyone was saying how Obama was horrible for the economy during the massive run on the stock market and it has since returned back to levels from last year.
.
Notice, by the way, that I didn't mention the stimulus because I think it had minimal impact on the economy with a few exceptions.
.
But all of that is irrelevant. JK's point, if you'd actually spent time to read, is that the actual impact and results from the initiatives of a Presidency often take time. Clinton didn't lose the Health Care fight until his second year. Clinton's economy didn't recover until his third year - after the 2010 midterms were over (nor, for that matter, did Reagan's). Hell, Reagan was out of office before his 1987 "tear down this wall" speech actually resulted in the wall coming down - 2 YEARS and change. Afghanistan had over 7 years under Bush and Iraq had 5 and even the surge took over a year before the skeptics were convinced that it had worked. Joe Klein's point is that it takes time.
.
And don't forget, Clinton came into office and got stuck with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, lost both Hillary care and the lower chamber and couldn't get out of a recession and finished his Presidency with an approval rating in the 70s. History decides the success of a Presidency, not the present.

formerly:
.
You can't be serious to suggest that you hold Obama in the highest regard as a President because so far...

"Obama has accomplished is not being GW"

???
.
That is not only the most stupid response back to someone I have yet to read on this site, but is even more rediculous than what Obama and Biden have done thus far and simply ...
.

"Let's just blame it all on George Bush II"

.
Come on formerlyjames, I know you can do better than that!!
.
And you ask this...
.

"I ask you, what in 8 years, did GW do that was right

.
Let's see for starters...
.
1. Kept any further terrorists attacks from happening on our own soil for 8 years. Did Obama achieve the same so far? NOPE Hasan has ruined that record in just 9 short months.
.
2. Allowed for the stock market to reach the highest levels, ever. Oversaw some of the best economic times since Reagan's 1980 economies.
.
3. Removed one of the most heinous Dictators in history, with the exception of Hitler himself. Freed the people of Iraq from over 30 years of tyrannical leadership.
.
4. Provided the most humanitarian aid ever for AIDS funding to Africa.
.
5. Brought Gaddafi in from the cold: a long process with an array of carrots and sticks, but the invasion of Iraq may have concentrated this dictator's mind, and put him forever on the sidelines of terrorism.
.
6. Prescription drug benefit: the donut hole is inefficient, but seniors do have substantial help in paying their drug bills now.
.
7. No Child left behind. We have the halting beginnings of assessing where we're at, state-by-state and district-by-district, in educational achievement.
.
8. Chinese changes: The Bush crew has maintained trust and cooperation; it's doubtful whether more pressure could have shaped Chinese economic or geopolitical decisions more to our liking.
.
9. Deposing the Taliban: yes, the caveats outweigh the accomplishment: we let bin Ladin escape, we took our eye off the ball, we allowed al Qaeda to regroup and left a foundling government in a shattered country to its own devices. But who's to say the initial campaign couldn't have been botched? The Taliban went down swiftly, with a minimum of blood.
.
Achievements that I believe in the next 50 or so odd years will be seen as significant.
.
His worst fault, the collaspe of the economy. Absolutely no excuse for that what-so-ever.

I agree, there is such a silent hush in the Media about all the emails about the Global Warming scam.
.
Why is that Joe? Karen? Jay?
.
Maybe my new best of the rest TIME journalist, Kate Pickert will take it up and do some investigating. How bout it Kate? Wanna show 'ol Joe here what real reporting and journalism is all about? He's so old and feeble minded now that all he can do is regurgitate OPsTPs (Other Peoples Talking Points).
.
What I would really like to see is Joe on the Factor Show with O'Reilly. Did you ever get over that beat-down from O'Reilly yet Joe?

In case anyone else might be curious about the possible scam.
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

Instead of crackpot theories (remember that Madoff was a product of deregulation, too), try real information and real characterizations of how science handles consensus.
.
Try Karl Poppers' Conjectures and Refutations
.
http://books.google.com/books?id=fZnrUfJWQ-YC&dq=Karl+Raimund+Popper&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=DVwNS6rbB4OQsgPkmrGjAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

IQ35

you get dumber by the day.

"Instead of crackpot theories (remember that Madoff was a product of deregulation, too)"

Madoff was a registered broker/dealer that underwent exams by the state security agency, NASDAQ and oh yeah had multiple audits by the SEC. And the SEC is a (come on say it with me) a federal government agency just like Medicaire, Medicaid, Post Office et al that are can't ferret out fraud. Gee maybe we should turn over all of health care to them as well.

The SEC was warned 4 times about Madoff and refused to act. Why did it happen, because the SEC was expected to act like a business helper rather than a business regulator for a while - notably under Chris Cox.
.
But hey, I'll humor you for a minute. Madoff was a well respected member of Wall Street who swindled millionaires just as successfully as the common Joe. But let's make an assumption here and I think you'll agree with it and if you don't, I apologize but let's make this assumption: the ultimate responsibility of any business is to its investors - whether they be private owners or stock holders of a publicly traded company or to the people of America for government agencies. Whether they act in the long term or short term best interests for their company is debatable and dependent heavily upon the company and whether they're competent in either is heavily dependent on the company.
.
So here's my question: assuming the assumption I made above, assuming that all companies know exactly what was known about Madoff by most groups, assuming the various rights to privacy that are put in place and how that would be lifted by any company that has oversight powers (and note: only a company or group with oversight authority would have said rights 'cause otherwise you're violating the right to privacy necessary for things like intellectual rights protections) and temporarily ignoring competence factors, how would you build a system that would have caught Madoff?

One more quick assumption: because companies are out for the best interests of their creditors and noting that companies are neither always competent nor do they always look out for their own best interests in the long run, we can make the assumption that there is absolutely nothing except existing government legislation that bars companies from lying to the public - so self-regulation doesn't work because, as we saw, Bernie Madoff didn't stop his Ponzi scheme until it collapsed.

forgottenlord:

By th end of your follow-up post I am not sure what you are arguing for or against. But here goes some responses.

You argue that the SEC acted like a business helper. Possibly, although I would argue they are young and incompetent more than a helper. Second, they act not unlike Fannie or Freddie did in the housing market. Bush warned about the lax standards and risk and Barney Frank argued that the solvency was firm. So in addition to the Comptroller of the currency, SEC and others Fannie and Freddie were under the uber-regulator, Congress and yet that scheme went untouched until it too collapsed.

As far as anyone with the "right": to oversight of Madoff there were plenty of signs for enforcement. Many simple procedures used at other broker dealers. For example, box count on trades (during a given period, trades are boxed and examined for price, amount, counterparty among other items), money transfers are confirmed with sending or receivng party, statement are verified with client and system versus custodian statements and finally performance of accounts are compared against each other and market conditions. There are others.

You assumption about self-regulation and government regulation is somewhat naive. No amount of regulation or legislation will stop anyone from doing harm if that is their intent. And as shown with Freddie and Fannie, Medicare, Medicaid, new home buyers credit (IRS agents fraudulently claiming tax credits), ACORN, fraud will happen and it is especially prevalent in government programs because of all entities government has the least talented and possibly the most corrupt (That may be a little strong, but the most easily influenced folks) people to deal with these issues. There diligence is shallow because if there is lost money they can always tax for more as taxpayers are a captive audience. Medicare has been around for 40+ years and the fraud is more entrenched despite the pounds of regulation and oversight.

Nice dodge with the insults freetopee, but your claims about a Global Warming scam are ridiculous - and I summarily shot them down.
.
As for Madoff, the atmosphere of "anything goes", when coupled with a complete lack of oversight (even the will to do so) was entirely the fault of the Bush Administration.
.
And I might point out, it was on his watch...

Its a farce that has already made Algore rich. While he is flapping his lips on global warning he has a house in Tennessee that when operating dims the lights in 3 neighboring counties.

Don't forget Bernanke's $7,200,000,000,000 handout without any oversight whatsoever in the waning Bush moments.
.
Just keeping things in perspective on that issue, not defending Geithner at all...

he's going to Copenhagen and has, by some accounts, managed to get a bilateral agreement in principle with China on climate change. That's no small thing. The EPA has designated CO2 a pollutant, no small thing. Oh yeah, cap and trade passed the House earlier this year - again no small thing.

On the Geithner and AIG thing, Geithner was left trying to negotiate terms AFTER the government had already put in $85 bn so he didn't have much leverage anyway. again not necessarily to defend TG but he didn't have a strong hand to start with.

homerhk,
.
With all due respect, we are talking about global climate change. We are talking about civilization-altering events. We are talking about effects that will make Katrina look like a Spring shower.
.
Sadly, all the things you mentioned are "small things". We don't have the luxury of patting ourselves on the back for token gestures. Simply put, we either lay out a an aggressive strategy for curbing emissions or we FAIL.
.
Obama will not be heading to Copenhagen with anything resembling a plan for success. Will he have a plan? Yes. Literally, a plan for failure.
.
I am predicting that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will not want to hear excuses about 60 votes. I am predicting that history will record Obama, like the rest of our leaders, as having happily fiddled while an environmental holocaust approached.

Don't you just love it freeinpa, when the liberal pundits like Joe Klein grovel at the feet of the newly elected liberal president, and claim..."it's history that will determine a Presidency, not the present".
.
Face up to it liberal loons. Obama is a waste. Obama is a less than "learn on the job" President than BIll Clinton or Jimmy Carter ever were. At least Clinton was a Governor before being a President, and Carter can lay claim to be a Peanut Farmer prior.
.
Obama? Oh he was a "COMMUNITY ORGANIZER". Working for the most fraudulent organizations in history, ACORN!!! Now THAT is Presidential experience my friends. Bringing your "A" game to the Presidency. LIES, FRAUD and RACKETEERING

Hey guys that aren't being wingbat nutjobs, don't you just love it when people like Rusty take something you posted on the comments and attribute it to Liberal journalists like Joe Klein? It's almost like how Fox News takes conspiracy theories from Fox Pundits and say that "some people" are concerned that these conspiracy theories might come true and pass it off as news!

Sorry for the double post here, but something is bugging me.
.
To my knowledge, aside from a massive political scandal and almost debilitating PR damage, ACORN has not been charged with actually committing a crime - please correct me if I'm wrong. On the other hand, Bush II's #1 campaign donor was Ken Lay of Enron who died before he could be convicted of various crimes that would've probably locked him up as long as Madoff. I don't want to start a hissy fight here over "my guy's got more corrupt guys in his inner circle than your guy" because that actually isn't my point (after all, Goldman Sachs was a major contributor to Obama and while they actually committed no crimes, I think they're right up there on the "if I could hang anyone" list for most Americans). My point is that corruption exists in both parties and that corrupt people are associated with both parties so just putting down a list of Obama's corrupt dealings doesn't make him the most corrupt and certainly doesn't make him lesser than any other President.

"Obama's world performance with China, Iran, et al is nothing but a signal to the world as weakness and/or incompetence."
.
As revealed by the fact that we went from most reviled country in US history to Nobel Peace Prize winner in ten short months. What incompetent performance.

A Pew Research Poll released today shows that the image of the United States has "improved markedly in most parts of the world," largely because of the high levels of global confidence and trust in Obama. Improvements were especially high in Western Europe, but attitudes toward America also warmed in Canada, Mexico, Argentina and urban populations in Brazil, India and China.

.
Turn off FOX and stick your head out the window once in a while, will ya. Idyut.

shepherdwong

People like Jerry Lewis too. They laugh at him. Which is what the world is doing with Obama. Even they have now tired of the I will placate everybody attitude

As far as winning the Nobel Prize, It should be the Sally Field Prize. "they like me they really like me". Don't confuse like with respect. The committee has managed to denigrate the prize by awarding the First Tourist a prize not for what he has done as been the long history, but for what he MAY DO.

I suggest you stop listening to the MSM and get your head out of your $SS

"They laugh at him. Which is what the world is doing with Obama."
.
Never mind looking out the window, you still need to learn how to read:

...the image of the United States has "improved markedly in most parts of the world," largely because of the high levels of global confidence and trust in Obama.

.
Don't you ever get tired of making a public jackass of your self?

Sherperdog

I read just fine. THEY ARE LAUGHING AT HIM. I can show you a poll that shows people believe in UFOs too, it does not mean they exist. He is weak, indecisive and with any important decision they ignore him. Are allies have figured it out (and I bet they read the Pew poll too).

You can name call but your delusion will eventually slap you in the face. The First Tourist is Jimmy without the Sweater

I'll take that as a definite "no".

Take it as you like. You are the living proof that ignorance is bliss. Maybe you should flip with IQ35 to see who gets to use the brain tomorrow

No prob, he can keep it. It looks as though even my pancreas can kick your ass in any argument.

Yes you are a legend in your own mind. He mind as well keep it. It's worthless and your mouth goes without the benefit of one.

I have been reading this blog for a few weeks now without commenting, but I wanted to weigh in here. I am an American living abroad (in Asia). I am interested in how the World perceives America, so I always ask other foreigners and locals what they think. EVERYONE (that's 100%) has said they like Obama and respect him. I have probably asked close to 50 people about this, and they all like and respect Obama. No one is laughing at him abroad, at least not the 50 or so people I have talked to. When I was traveling during the Bush years everyone hated him. He was a huge joke abroad. The only people I could find that liked Bush were people from Israel.

On another note, showing respect is not the same as being weak. I show people respect everyday, it is just courteous, especially when you are a guest in someone's country. Many Asian countries in particular have a history of imperialism, and the last thing they want is a foreigner to walk in and act like they are better than them. We are the strongest country in the World, but there is no reason we have to throw it in people's faces constantly.

The Conservatives may disagree with Obama and his policies, but please stop saying the World is laughing at him. It's just not the case. Happy Thanksgiving!

"EVERYONE (that's 100%) has said they like Obama and respect him. I have probably asked close to 50 people about this, and they all like and respect Obama. No one is laughing at him abroad..."
.
Now worries, js112. Everyone here know that freeinpa is full of sh*t (he thinks that people are laughing at Obama, instead of him and his fellow teabagging morons) but that's what happens when you don't get out of your mom's basement much.
.
I've done similar informal polls in other countries and gotten the same result as you - people like and respect Obama and he's given them a good deal of hope he can turn this country around from where eight long years of Republican rule have left it. Thanks for the additional data point.

Let's see:

1) Hasn't inherited peace and prosperity and turned it into wars and deficits as far as the eye cans see.
.
2) Hasn't let terrorists destroy landmark buildings and kill thousands of people in New York and Washington after being warned of a gathering threat.
.
3) Hasn't launched two unwinnable wars and occupations, costing $trillions, thousands of American soldiers' lives and the lives of millions of innocent non-combatants.
.
Considering that he inherited all of that as well as a near global financial collapse and depression, and we still have groceries and electricity, I give him a B+.

So far?
.
It is simply his inability to do anything that is the problem.
.
While Rome is burning, Obama is throwing another big party at the White House.
.
Come on people, wake the hell up already. ROME IS BURNING!!!!!

"Come on people, wake the hell up already. ROME IS BURNING!!!!!
.
Ahem. Yes, well, we've been telling you that for quite some time. Perhaps we should have used more caps and exclamation points.

"Time will tell, and time foresees very dire economic times ahead of us. Perhaps even worse than what occured [sic] during the Great Depression."
.
If they are, it will be entirely, 100%, the fault of..."conservatives".

First: the stock market is above the level that it was at when Obama was sworn in.
.
Second, when Obama was sworn in, the Stock Market continued it's general trend of downward that had been going since, well, Lehman. While TARP did wonders at stabilizing the credit markets, the problems of the housing market still collapsing and absolutely no consumer confidence in either consumption or the stock market continued. It wasn't until after Geithner released both the asset purchasing program (which bought few if any assets but was actually the beginning of the rally - thus restoring confidence in the markets) and the results of the stress test (which continued the surge in the markets and completed the stabilization of consumer confidence). Seriously, do an actual timeline on the stock market against federal announcements and you'll find that TARP had far less of an impact on the current rally (happening a full 5 months before the rally began) than Geithner's work.
.
The Stabilization of the housing market meant that the underwater assets that banks had didn't keep deteriorating and that new foreclosures weren't continuing the bleeding. I believe Obama had two major pieces that helped that along - first was the restructured mortgage deal that the Treasury Department financed and the second was the first-time home buyer incentive stuck into the stimulus. Most economists credit at least one if not both with helping stabilize the housing market - a problem that still existed with Bush.
.
Also note that I did not list under Obama's accomplishments the total recovery of the economy nor did I list that Americans are back to where they started in Q2 2007. Keep in mind, though, that the bottom of the recession was in Q1 2009, approximately 15 months after Q2 2007. We are, now, nearing 9 months since then. Aside from the fact that this recession was incredibly deep incredibly fast making it possible that the recovery will, in fact, take longer than the destruction (after all, a lot of it was because of overvalued assets which means, by definition, they shouldn't get to the same level until inflation catches us up to them and don't forget, the Nasdaq has, after nearly a decade, only gotten to about half of what it's all-time high was).
.
The jury is still out on the stock market, I agree. However, it'll be entirely upon whether the credit card crisis that people talk about will show up or not. However, Conservatives were expecting that to have happened by now so I feel a bit safer on that.
.
As for the dollar - well, that's hardly Obama's fault. The dollar has been in a constant state of decline for several years. You can't end a war let alone two in a year (assuming you jump straight to withdrawal) and while Obama certainly can be blamed for increasing the deficit, there was no way he was going to end a record deficit in one year.
.
And I did not say Obama created jobs, I did not say that Obama ended the recession, I said he did the two things that are really all a President can do - restore confidence and get capital flowing. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY SAID A PRESIDENT CAN'T, REASONABLY, DIRECTLY CREATE JOBS.
.
And if I'd told you a year ago that today, we'd have a stock market above 10K, you'd have laughed me out of the room.
.
But I have a very different question. Let's say Obama keeps the Stock Market above 10K by 2012 - not a full recovery of the stock market since many were overvalued, but a maintained stability of the stock market. Let's assume that the unemployment level is around where it was when Obama was elected - again, not a full recovery, but a fairly good one considering where he is right now. Let's also say, for sake of argument, that inflation is somewhere in the range of 2-3%. Would you, at that point, say that Obama has ended the recession and credit him with doing something good for the country, or will you be doomsaying and complaining about a socialist takeover?

"But I have a very different question. Let's say Obama keeps the Stock Market above 10K by 2012 - not a full recovery of the stock market since many were overvalued, but a maintained stability of the stock market. Let's assume that the unemployment level is around where it was when Obama was elected - again, not a full recovery, but a fairly good one considering where he is right now. Let's also say, for sake of argument, that inflation is somewhere in the range of 2-3%. Would you, at that point, say that Obama has ended the recession and credit him with doing something good for the country, or will you be doomsaying and complaining about a socialist takeover?"
forgottenlord
November 25, 2009
at 2:51 pm

.
This is a lot of "If's", "and's" and "but's", wouldn't you say forgotten?
.
For one thing, Obama better hope to hell he keeps the stock market over 10k by 2012. Time again in my opinion will be the judge on that one. I think that the stimulus, bailout, and banking takeover will define further increases in the stock market or it's continued hover around 10k. I think it has no where to go unless more money is pumped into it by Government sources. Once that well dries, which I think it already has, we shall see a retreat, and quickly go back down to the post-crash levels in March '09 of about 6400 points.
.
Unemployment and predictions I have read and listened to so far show little if any improvement. The stimulus money in particular, and the overall government involvement has little to no basis in history to go by to say if any real, long-term jobs will occur. If anything, I think there will be further decline in jobs as we enter 1Q 2010 if consumer spending does not begin to pick up now during the Holiday season, it's over and the fat lady can start singing. Without consumer spending, companies will again retreat. I think the latest reports on consumer confidence and spending showing a less than expected climb at this, the major spending time of the year historically is a good indicator of what's to come.
.
Inflation is key. If we begin to see inflation go the way as gold has gone, then you will see Bernake begin raising interest rates. That will further erode business speculation, and continue the downward spiral of job losses.
.
I am sorry, but Obama screwed up with his stimulus package, listening to Geitner and putting his money into Wall Street, and keeping his hands in the banks and not setting them free again. The stimulus money should have went into stimulating business towards growth, growth causing jobs, growth which only happens when taxes are cut. Spreading around $250 dollars to each Senior Citizen will not make any impact what-so-ever. Putting those same dollars into a smaller pool for businesses in the form of further tax cuts would have made a major difference. The difference being jobs versus the purchase of depends diapers.
.
But, Obama has to do something with Seniors because he is about ready to cut out over 500 BILLION of their health care, maybe he'll get away with appeasing them with $250 bucks, but I highly doubt it.
.
But, if things happen as you cite in the above paragraph or so, absolutely. I will have nothing but the highest praise for him. But, I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen either.

*saves the link and a reminder to check back in 3 years.*
.
I'll probably forget....but on the off chance I remember, this'll have been worth it.

Fuggedaboutit. Being a "conservative" (or "centrist" or "Independent" for that matter) means never having to take responsibility for being wrong.