Where is the US economy headed?

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Did somebody actually say that they could wean us off oil in 10 years.

Sheesh!!

U.S. off of oil cartel oil in 10 years, yes, spendius, Obama has claimed that more than once. Our energy policy is silly, to non-existent. I still remember Obama mentioning geothermal in one of the debates as a viable source that would help wean us off of oil. Anybody informed on energy should call this type of stuff stupid, which is what it is. It is not connected to the real world. But as usual, all of the substance of what was debated was not examined for accuracy or realism. And this is the smartest guy of all time, after all, he was something with the Harvard Law Review. Well, we have Washington D.C. infested with lawyers already, and I think that is a big part of our problem.

1 Reply

@okie,

And does the Harvard Law Review think we can be weaned off oil in 10 years as well?

No wonder high level contacts have been resumed here with Russia.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

From AP:

Quote:

Obama says US economy sound, reassures investors
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 40 mins ago

WASHINGTON " President Barack Obama on Saturday downplayed divisions between the U.S. and Europe over how to tackle the world's financial crisis and said China should have "absolute confidence" that its sizable investments in the United States are safe.

In a conversation focused heavily on the economy, Obama met in the Oval Office with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. It was the latest in a series of talks the president has had with his counterparts around the world before a pair of international meetings where the economic crisis will dominate.

Both leaders will attend the Group of 20 countries summit in London on April 2, and the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in mid-April.

Obama said the notion that the U.S. and Europe are already taking sides, with America pushing for more stimulus spending and European nations favoring tighter regulation of the financial industry, is a "phony debate."

"I can't be clearer in saying that there are no sides," Obama told reporters after the meeting. He said a full range of approaches, including stimulus spending such as his own recently enacted $787 billion package, and financial regulation, are needed to help revive the global economy.

Financial regulation "is front and center" among the issues he wants to deal with, he said.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Financial regulation "is front and center" among the issues he wants to deal with, he said.

Well blow me down with a feather duster if that don't beat all.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, A feather would be over-kill in your case.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

And does the Harvard Law Review think we can be weaned off oil in 10 years as well?

No wonder high level contacts have been resumed here with Russia.

Meanwhile all the brilliant Democrats continue with their no drill policy.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

From AP:

Quote:
Obama says US economy sound, reassures investors
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer Darlene Superville, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 40 mins ago

color][/b]

Be hell to pay if, say John McCain had said something similar, huh?

1 Reply

@roger,

Big difference; McCain said it just a few months before all hell broke loose; Obama is now saying it with some confidence that the economy will recover from this disaster.

Time will prove Obama right or wrong. We all know McCain screwed up royally when he said "the economy is fundamentally strong" a few months before the crisis hit. Many lost up to 50% of their retirement savings after McCain made his statement. Not too many happy campers out there.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Okay. Glad it's fixed in three months.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Big difference; McCain said it just a few months before all hell broke loose; Obama is now saying it with some confidence that the economy will recover from this disaster.

Time will prove Obama right or wrong. We all know McCain screwed up royally when he said "the economy is fundamentally strong" a few months before the crisis hit. Many lost up to 50% of their retirement savings after McCain made his statement. Not too many happy campers out there.

Yeah, the economy is suddenly fixed by Obama. For example, the unemployment rate is improving, as shown in the first graph. If you don't believe it, ask ci.

http://forecasts.org/images/leading-indicator/unemploy.gif

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is what okie said on another thread:
Quote:
Reagan had something called common sense, something Obama doesn't seem to have.

He's a f...kg idiot, and your defense of him doesn't nothing to mitigate his idiocy.

The fact is there is indeed a very strong case for the proposition that Reagan did indeed have a great deal of what we call common sense, and, as well, an unusual ability to connect with large numbers of people. We now know from the historical record that he wrote a great deal of his own material and rather firmly guided the central themes of his administration on his own. You may not agree with this, but the proposition is not at all either laughable or remarkable. Certainly the fact that okie made such an assertion is not at all the obvious "proof" of idiocy that you suggest. Your outrage seems strangely disproportionate to the offense.

Though it is too early to tell, there is also a basis of concern for the possibility that Obama may be in over his head and a victim to the hubris that so often befalls untested people who rise too fast and too high. I certainly hope that isn't the case, but there is evidence to suggest it might prove true.

I haven't defended okie at all. Instead I have expressed some concern and disapproval of your too often intemperate and insulting remarks. They do a much better job of making you look foolish than anyone else. I know you to be a nice guy, well informed and pleasant - what you have shown here isn't the guy I have met. Why don't you knock it off?

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I don't mind anyone praising any one president, but okie has to compare Reagan to Obama who has been in office for less than two months. His ability to determine any individual's ability at common sense shows me that okie has none. okie is the least able to make intelligent discourse on any topic whether it's about economics or politics.

Show me where I'm wrong.

I'd rather look foolish than let okie spill his drivel every day.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Though it is too early to tell, there is also a basis of concern for the possibility that Obama may be in over his head and a victim to the hubris that so often befalls untested people who rise too fast and too high. I certainly hope that isn't the case, but there is evidence to suggest it might prove true.

Sure is a lot of hedging and suggestion in this paragraph...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure is a lot of hedging and suggestion in this paragraph...

Cycloptichorn

Indeed. And appropriately so, precisely because the possibility is only suggested by recent events, and not yet proven.

I'm not prejudging Obama, but I am disappointed in his failure to restrain the zealots in his party - as he implied in his campaign rhetoric that he would - precisely at the moment when he had the greatest power to do so. It appears to me that he now has a number of serious, built-in contradictions in place that will seriously jeapordize his ability to carry out other promises he has made.

His rather elevated rhetoric implies a degree of moderation that has not yet been detectable in many of the concrete actions he has taken. Now the specific implications of his expressed intentions with respect to issues ranging from health care to carbon emissions limitation to energy policy and several others suggest to me that he will face some very adverse tradeoffs, largely of his own making, and as a result have a very tough political road ahead. All of this has happened many time before in other presidencies. Though he is a current star, Obama is not immune to the patterns of history.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

There's almost a balance between the pros and cons from the politicos about Obama with less than two months in office. I have my own doubts about how he's carrying on his stimulus plan by bailing out the auto companies and giving AIG almost $200 billion dollars to keep them afloat - as they give their employees a bonus for failure.

However, there is no way for any one of us to determine the success or failure of the total program being implemented by the current government; it's impossible to know only two months into the new president's term.

People who cry "socialism" doesn't understand what socialism is; just more conservatives trying to put fear into Americans. If they don't know what socialism is, they sure don't understand what capitalism is.

If any one of them studied economics in college, I'm not sure how they graduated. Do you?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The word "socialism" means different things to different people. To the extent that socialism implies government ownership and control of the means of production and is implied by a very high level of government-controlled expenditure as a % of GDP, then the Democrat's proposals to take over the health care system in this country and micromanage banks, energy production, and consumer product design - all accompanied by unprecedented high levels of government expenditure - then we are indeed moving closer to socialism.

But then I didn't major in Economics in college. I studied fluid mechanics, mechanical and nuclear engineering, and mathematics.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

"Moving towards socialism" is still quite different than socialism as defined in economics. Government must have total ownership of all commercial enterprise before it's really socialism. We're very far from that point.

There are some good reasons the feds had to take over some of the banks either totally or partially. You should understand the whys.

1 Reply

FYI to CI:

AIG today published the top twenty Counterparties...IE who has gotten the American taxpayer money via the various AIG bailouts

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Moving towards socialism" is still quite different than socialism as defined in economics. Government must have total ownership of all commercial enterprise before it's really socialism. We're very far from that point.

There are some good reasons the feds had to take over some of the banks either totally or partially. You should understand the whys.

The problem here is that no one has asserted that the United States has become a socialist state as you define it. Instead some have suggested that we are moving towards socialism as I accurately described it.

You are chasing your own illusions .

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't mind anyone praising any one president, but okie has to compare Reagan to Obama who has been in office for less than two months. His ability to determine any individual's ability at common sense shows me that okie has none. okie is the least able to make intelligent discourse on any topic whether it's about economics or politics.

Show me where I'm wrong.

I'd rather look foolish than let okie spill his drivel every day.

If I may be so brash as to interrupt this conversation, ci, and point out one clear example of Obama's lack of common sense that I brought up, that you have totally ignored.

I go back to the fact that Obama has more than once promised that he would make the U.S. free of importing OPEC oil in ten years, by instituting his energy policy, which apparently consists of throwing more money at wind and solar. He also mentioned geothermal once in a debate as something that he would promote. This is not an honest opinion or it is not an opinion that can be promoted by anyone with common sense. To walk you through this, see the following chart:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/images/Renew%20consumption%202007A.png

Now, I challenge you to read all the material you can put your hands on and provide one ounce of data or evidence that in 10 years, we could become self sufficient from OPEC oil with any realistic hope to do it with wind and solar. Remember, Obama has marginally said he was in favor of nuclear, but he opposes any disposal solutions of waste that have been proposed, so you can forget nuclear as part of the equation. But even if it was, there would be no practical way to expand nuclear in 10 years, given the regulatory nightmares in this country.

ci, Ronald Reagan would have never suggested something like Obama suggested, because it defies something called "common sense." Now, go do your homework, call any energy expert, and report back to us all here on A2k and let us know what you find out. But please come back here with something called evidence. A snide comment about my intelligence no longer flies, as if it ever did.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know