The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

[we_are_toast]

The State of the Union address last night could be a real game changer. The President strongly implied he was going down the wrong path and will now get back to where he promised to be. I think he knows he was betrayed by the advice of his advisors and will be far more cautious of what he hears in the future.

Since macroeconomics can be highly dependent on what the government does, I think this really throws a monkey wrench in some of the analysis. My guess is there will be no more appeasement of the FIRE interests as was probably suggested by Geithner/Summers. The problem is, he made an awful lot of enemies last night, FIRE interests, moderate Dems, Supreme Court, and of course the Republican party who cheered the Supreme Court decision and has unanimously supported blocking any reform of FIRE.

The American people will not accept appeasement anymore, but they have no idea of how tight the strangle hold grip of the FIRE interests is on the Congress. And with the Supreme Court declaring we are a nation of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations, the money will be pouring in to stop any reform efforts Obama proposes. Frankly, I don't see the reformers surviving this onslaught.

Last night the President pretty much declared we will have reform or he will be a one term president. I think he may very well get the latter. It looks like we'll get one more cycle of Republican rule repeating what they always do, then we get EJ's worst nightmare. An uninformed, dissolutioned public will turn to whoever tells them he will give them the most when elected.

If government action is going to be a big part of how we invest, I think we need to be extremely cautious and watch carefully to see the details of what's going to be proposed and if there's any chance of getting reforms passed.

[ViC78]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

Here is an excerpt from the text of the SOTU -

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right.

As far as I can understand, he is not proposing any new "reforms" to the banking system. All the existing reform proposals, although better than nothing, have loopholes which the banks can drive a huge SIV through, and seem to be more about the "optics". Throughout the past year, Obama talked a good game but came up woefully short on details and implementation.
I voted for the guy but have gotten nothing but disappointment since. I have pretty much given up and think he is by the oligarchy, for the oligarchy and of the oligarchy. I would be gratified to be proven wrong but am not holding my breath.

[labasta]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

"The President strongly implied he was going down the wrong path and will now get back to where he promised to be"

We are Toast, what did Obama actually say though? He kept saying he hated the bank bailout but had to do what was necessary. The markets are now stabilised and we have now recovered most of the money which bailed out the banks. Struggling but encouraged, resilient, forever hopeful, adversity, rural communities being poorer but you can still go to the junior league game.

What market is he talking about? Which economy? The rest is air. He just aired compassion at the end of his speech which implied that he was one of us and not one of them. This is a clever marketing tactic and has been one of his major pillars of his charisma. He didn't say he was going to so anything about it, but his compassion implied it. Clever eh?

My take on Obama at his inauguration was that he would be ALL WORDS AND NO ACTION. However, it is worse. He seems to be working aggressively against the people and for the banks/pharma instead. If that really changed, he would get a bullet IMO.

My opinion has not changed because ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

Watch what they do, not what they say, is the motto for ALL politicians.

At least Bush didn't pretend he was in power and knew what he was doing. I respect him for that. I read he went on holiday for 6 months of the year during his presidency. Good for him. You can get a hell of a lot worse than a politician who does nothing.

These days, I view the war/oil party as a better bet than the bank/pharma party for the future well being of America. Ron Paul would be the best, but de-brainwashing of the people takes time.

The best thing is to ignore Obama completely, his charisma can fool those who should know better and on that note is a dangerous man.

[we_are_toast]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

Here is an excerpt from the text of the SOTU -




As far as I can understand, he is not proposing any new "reforms" to the banking system. All the existing reform proposals, although better than nothing, have loopholes which the banks can drive a huge SIV through, and seem to be more about the "optics". Throughout the past year, Obama talked a good game but came up woefully short on details and implementation.
I voted for the guy but have gotten nothing but disappointment since. I have pretty much given up and think he is by the oligarchy, for the oligarchy and of the oligarchy. I would be gratified to be proven wrong but am not holding my breath.

Actually, since the house bill was passed, he's proposed new taxes on larger banks profits, and he's talking about limits to the size of banks.

Keep in mind, he's up against what maybe the most powerful interests on the planet. You have to propose some things you think you can get through congress. Coming out and saying you're going to bust up the big investment banks would have a snowballs chance of passing. Saying you're going to support smaller banks who lend to small businesses has a much better chance of passing.

Last year was all about appeasement to get something, anything passed. From here on out it won't be like that. There will be modest proposals that they think they can get passed, and there will be much stronger proposals that they know won't go anywhere but will start to expose the people in congress who will fight tooth and nail against any reforms.

Obama didn't and can't suspend the horrible political reality we are faced with today, but there will be far more reform legislation proposed this year than last.

[shiny!]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

It looks like we'll get one more cycle of Republican rule repeating what they always do, then we get EJ's worst nightmare. An uninformed, dissolutioned public will turn to whoever tells them he will give them the most when elected.

I think this already happened last year. Obama is giving us the nightmare, it just takes time and it's hard to see the big picture when we're in the middle of "history". The next time it happens, things will just go from worst to even worser.

If government action is going to be a big part of how we invest, I think we need to be extremely cautious and watch carefully to see the details of what's going to be proposed and if there's any chance of getting reforms passed.

This is why I'm cautious about investing in anything. The markets are too rigged by program trading. Even if I were to find stocks I could trust, I don't trust the gov't from confiscating my profits, IRA or whatever. Land can be condemned and confiscated. Gold won't be confiscated IMO. Why would they go to the trouble for such a tiny piece of the pie when they can simply impose a 90% luxury tax on gold sales?

[tsetsefly]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

New administration? he said what he has been saying all along, the problem or good thing, depending how you look at it is obama does not follow through on what he says.

And I hope no one buy his "me against the lobbyist" talk, because that's all it is. He is letting FIRE lobbyist determine economic policy and how the bailout is handled. He let the big players in the tobacco industry write the "new tough regulations" against tobacco. He is made a deal with the pharmaceuticals and im sure one with the insurers is coming along. And he is maintaining the military-industrial complex by keeping war spending up etc.

He is a great speaker and deceiver, selling himself as an outisder when he is precisely the opposite. He is the embodiment of an insider, a true politician...

[blazespinnaker]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

The State of the Union address last night could be a real game changer. The President strongly implied he was going down the wrong path and will now get back to where he promised to be. I think he knows he was betrayed by the advice of his advisors and will be far more cautious of what he hears in the future.

I think Obama felt that he had to do what he did. I'm not sure you can really blame him, and who knows, we might be in a depression now if he hadn't.

Since macroeconomics can be highly dependent on what the government does, I think this really throws a monkey wrench in some of the analysis. My guess is there will be no more appeasement of the FIRE interests as was probably suggested by Geithner/Summers. The problem is, he made an awful lot of enemies last night, FIRE interests, moderate Dems, Supreme Court, and of course the Republican party who cheered the Supreme Court decision and has unanimously supported blocking any reform of FIRE.

I agree with a lot of this. We need to be careful about what may happen if Obama actually starts cleaning house.

The American people will not accept appeasement anymore, but they have no idea of how tight the strangle hold grip of the FIRE interests is on the Congress. And with the Supreme Court declaring we are a nation of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations, the money will be pouring in to stop any reform efforts Obama proposes. Frankly, I don't see the reformers surviving this onslaught.

Yeah .. that should be pretty interesting. Obama has started early and will keep pressing it. Interesting enough, it could be that this bit of work actually makes Obama *more* electable.

Last night the President pretty much declared we will have reform or he will be a one term president. I think he may very well get the latter. It looks like we'll get one more cycle of Republican rule repeating what they always do, then we get EJ's worst nightmare. An uninformed, dissolutioned public will turn to whoever tells them he will give them the most when elected.

Perhaps.. I think governments like China and Saudia Arabia have a lot more to do with who gets elected. I could see them pushing pro-american policies in order to get Obama re-elected (ie, more cheap credit)

If government action is going to be a big part of how we invest, I think we need to be extremely cautious and watch carefully to see the details of what's going to be proposed and if there's any chance of getting reforms passed.

Yup! Definitely, well said.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

Actually, since the house bill was passed, he's proposed new taxes on larger banks profits, and he's talking about limits to the size of banks.

Keep in mind, he's up against what maybe the most powerful interests on the planet. You have to propose some things you think you can get through congress. Coming out and saying you're going to bust up the big investment banks would have a snowballs chance of passing. Saying you're going to support smaller banks who lend to small businesses has a much better chance of passing.

Last year was all about appeasement to get something, anything passed. From here on out it won't be like that. There will be modest proposals that they think they can get passed, and there will be much stronger proposals that they know won't go anywhere but will start to expose the people in congress who will fight tooth and nail against any reforms.

Obama didn't and can't suspend the horrible political reality we are faced with today, but there will be far more reform legislation proposed this year than last.

I agree with Vic on this one. I think Obama is owned and will just end up talking smack bt not actually doing anything. Attacking the banks is a very populist message that he has to do.

To be honest, there is one thing and one thing only that Obama could do to fix the banks: make it so everyone has to take all non salary compensation in the form of 4 year stock grants that can not be sold right away and when they are sold have to be publicly declared.

That would fix so many things.

[labasta]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

Actually, since the house bill was passed, he's proposed new taxes on larger banks profits, and he's talking about limits to the size of banks.

Propose and talk is not implement and enforce though.

I understand you think he is genuine and up against it. You may be right.

My own take is that he is a fraud. I am deeply suspicious of someone who comes out of nowhere all of a sudden and can really talk the talk. I immediately think "puppet".

Also, "reform" may be out of the frying pan and into the fire. The fact that he wanted health care reform as a free meal ticket for the current system by forcing the government to pay for it stinks of a bankrupt medical system in a state of desperation to keep itself profitable. The same for the bailout of the banks. Hence, the bank/med party. It appears to me he doesn't want a highly efficient, successful and cheap healthcare and banking system. He wants the same ol' same ol' and hence wants the dollar to pay to keep these bankrupt highly inefficient industries alive.

Anyway, just my take on things. I may be wrong in the coming years. Time will tell.

[GRG55]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

Actually, since the house bill was passed, he's proposed new taxes on larger banks profits, and he's talking about limits to the size of banks...

This is one part that I am having some difficulty with. The House bill was passed before any of the recent talk about the "Volcker Rule", etc. and doesn't include any of the proposals to limit the size of banks and so forth.

But last night I got the very distinct impression that the President was happy to accept the current House bill as is.

So what does that tell us? :confused: [the cynics would say that Volcker is still just a figurehead to be trotted out when needed...others would say it's a sign of evolving thinking in the Administration. For me the jury is still out on this issue; time will tell]

Keep in mind, he's up against what maybe the most powerful interests on the planet. You have to propose some things you think you can get through congress. Coming out and saying you're going to bust up the big investment banks would have a snowballs chance of passing. Saying you're going to support smaller banks who lend to small businesses has a much better chance of passing.

Last year was all about appeasement to get something, anything passed. From here on out it won't be like that. There will be modest proposals that they think they can get passed, and there will be much stronger proposals that they know won't go anywhere but will start to expose the people in congress who will fight tooth and nail against any reforms.

Obama didn't and can't suspend the horrible political reality we are faced with today, but there will be far more reform legislation proposed this year than last.

I am hopeful of several things. First, politics is a tough business and the President didn't get to where he is by being the milquetoast some are trying to portray him as. It's clear that to get anything progressive done in Washington is going to require trench warfare against the Republicans...and I am hopeful the Democrats are finally ready for that.

Second, this President is no fool. He's bright, articulate and a quick learner...so there's every reason to expect that he's "growing into this job". I am cautiously optimistic that you'll be proved correct, that there's going to be a constructive change in tactics.

Although I am not an American I am watching this pretty closely. As I've posted before, America can afford to ignore much of what happens in the rest of the world, but the rest of the world can't afford to ignore what happens in America...

[c1ue]

Re: The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

The 1st Year of a new Administration Begins

How many 1st years of administration does 1 president get in 1 term?

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt.

Let's see:

2 wars - check
economy rocked - check
financial system on verge of collapse - check
government deeply in debt - check check check

Change You Can Believe In?

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can’t afford it. Not now.

A good diagnosis, up until the last 2 sentences. More correctly: they are tired of stimulus money only landing on the banks (Hudson). They know we can't afford (to keep deficit spending).

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular – I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

Really? How many more businesses would have closed down? Is bank lending flat, up, or down? (down BIG time).

More homes would have been lost? How many homes has Obama policies saved?

So I supported the last administration’s efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took the program over, we made it more transparent and accountable. As a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we have recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. fficeffice" />

Nice - stimulus package not spoken of. Citibank and other direct bailouts not spoken of. Bernanke @ the Fed not spoken of. And transparency and accountability? hardly

That’s why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65% cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college.

Hmm is this Obama, Bush, or Reagan? I thought Obama was the fiscally responsible one.

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

Yeah, but I thought the stimulus was to create NEW jobs.

So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat.

Yay! $30B for community banks. $12T for the TBTF. $13B bonuses paid to the banksters. Seems fine to me.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions.

Ah, so the fault is that they didn't have the information they needed. No predatory practices here.

The House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are already trying to kill it. Well, we cannot let them win this fight

We = Weasel. I = responsibility.

We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security.

Great - so how does a National Export Initiative make up for huge disparities in labor, tax, and regulatory costs? Unemployment fees per head, for example, are skyrocketing - these don't even exist in other nations. Housing prices feed into labor costs - yet Obama continues to propping up of real estate prices. And what is reforming export controls to be consistent with national security? This sounds more like a restriction.

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are.

...

And that’s why we will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama, and Colombia.

Uh, Doofus, our competitors export to us. What will we export to them?

Total population of these key partners: 100 million.

Total GDP of these key partners: $1.2B

So 1/3 of the population and less than 1/10th the GDP - and they're going to save us by buying our s**t?

. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.

Nice - $10,000 will barely pay for 1 year of state college in California. And that's before NEXT year's tuition fee increases.

And that also assumes there is income to credit against.

And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.

That's progressive. Only highlight thus far. Welfare by any other name...

It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.

...

There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.

WTF? Did I miss something important?

When did doctors, nurses, and health care experts start saying the lack of a public option was a vast improvement over the status quo?

How does forcing millions of Americans to buy health insurance increase choice?

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it’s not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves.

Eh? Health Care Reform as it is will REDUCE the deficit? NFW!

To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.

So does this mean Obama is going to fire:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/0...dministration/

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm [now confirmed].

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

Since the day I took office, we have renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation.

We for Weasel

Even as we prosecute two wars, we are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people – the threat of nuclear weapons. I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them.

By building nuclear defense systems in Poland?

My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate.

Unless you're deemed a terrorist and thus not a 'person', and also not entitled to the protections given under the Constitution.