Thread: What has Obama Accomplished So Far?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by TLansford

interesting article and I see your point about the fed attempting to influence the long-term interest rates with monetary policy.

the Fed can shape the Treasury yield curve, but can't exactly set the yield for every maturity like Socal 2.0 is trying to imply.

Again, the role of the Fed is to maintain GDP at a certain level and for that to happen they manipulate the money supply so market participants can "price" the interest rates.

Back to attempting petty personal insults I see Butterfly? Well done! FYI I have never said the Fed 'sets' rates at anything other than the very short end, the rest are managed/influenced/manipulated whatever you want to call it.

Originally Posted by sabang

Bernanke admits the Fed has no leeway with respect to short term interest rates. That is a Bankers admission (like gee, ya don't say). More interesting is what he doesn't say actually, as in the Fed's real agenda. The real aim of the Fed standing in the market with respect to long term government guaranteed debt is two, possibly threefold.

One is to drive private sector investment, by reducing the attractiveness of long term 'safe' investments. How successful this may be is debatable- given the securitisation & globalisation of Debt markets, and the proliferation of debt instruments (and exotics) in general. Tbonds & fannies are by no means the only game in town these days, but then again US gov't debt does have a somewhat de facto allocation in long term financial portfolio's- such as insurance & retirement portfolio's, and multi generational trusts. We are talking a lot of money here. Then there is the shitload of money passively sitting in corporate coffers, although this is generally held in short dated instruments.

Two, and probably more important, is to pursue a weak dollar policy- also to drive private investment. A weak dollar makes the US more competitive in international terms, and thus encourages both inwards and domestic investment. It also encourages import substitution in domestic consumption.

Third may just be an 'unintended consequence', but it is not unwelcome- this being mild inflation. The real problem facing the US was deflation actually, after the GFC. The Fed's policy has been inflationary for years, since Volcker left the Fed basically. They've never actually admitted it though and I doubt they will now ("I am deliberately debasing your currency" is not a permitted in bankerspeak), when it is more blatant than ever. Mild inflation attracts active rather than passive investment- because 'real' interest rates are low or negative, and other investments offer more reward. Real estate in particular benefits. It also, as above, keeps the dollar low. The ultimate aim, once again, is to stimulate the economy via private sector investment.

How long the rest of the world will hold faith in the USD and US debt under these rather abusive conditions is an open ended question. It has held up surprisingly well so far, I have to say.

those are fairly uncontroversial aims of the Fed but I wonder if it has a credible exit plan for any of this? if they get some inflation into the system and rates rise the % of Govt tax revenues that go on paying debt interest is not going to be pretty.

Leaving aside the Treasury debt for a moment, Bernanke is also currently buying $16.8bn of mortgage backed securities PER WEEK, meaning he will have over $2 trillion in the next 12 months. Good luck with unraveling all of that in addition to the treasury debts.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by TLansford

interesting article and I see your point about the fed attempting to influence the long-term interest rates with monetary policy.

the Fed can shape the Treasury yield curve, but can't exactly set the yield for every maturity like Socal 2.0 is trying to imply.

Again, the role of the Fed is to maintain GDP at a certain level and for that to happen they manipulate the money supply so market participants can "price" the interest rates.

agreed.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by draco888

Originally Posted by sabang

The other noteworthy achievement- being the first President to be re-elected with unemployment running at 8% and above, in this case by a near landslide- is of course entirely owed to the nature of his Opposition, specifically their political incompetence.

Near landslide? I thought he got 50.7% vs 47.6% of the vote. Do these figures constitute a landslide?

In the weeks since the election, as states have completed their counts, Obama’s margin has grown steadily. From just over 2 percentage points, it now stands at nearly 4. Rather than worry about the Bush-Kerry precedent, White House aides now brag that Obama seems all but certain to achieve a mark hit by only five others in U.S. history – winning the presidency twice with 51% or more of the popular vote.

As of Friday, Obama had 50.97% of the vote to Mitt Romney’s 47.3% with 47 states having certified their final count, according to the statistics compiled assiduously by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

Most of the nation’s remaining uncounted ballots, perhaps as many as 413,000, Wasserman estimated, are in heavily Democratic New York, where officials have until next week to finish their tabulations. The other two states yet to certify a final count are West Virginia, which Romney carried, and Hawaii, which went heavily for its native son, the president. Once all those get tossed into the mix, Obama’s margin almost surely will rise slightly, allowing him to claim the 51% mark without rounding up.

must suck to be a republican: Three lessons from the near-final popular vote - latimes.com

51% of the vote is a 'landslide'? sounds more like a marginal win to me.

the problem in a country that is largely divided and polarized, any majority is going to be marginal

so basically it's a minority making the choice for everyone else,

which brings interesting question in terms of democracy and suffrage,

they are basically marginal democracy,

The greatest popular margin since records were kept was LBJ- 62%.
When dubya was first elected, he had lost the popular vote.

Having read all the hyperbole about Ob's accomplishments (and a great deal of economic theories), I myself, can find only one TANGIBLE benefit of Obama's election/re-election, and that is:
HE KEPT HILLARY CLINTON FROM BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT!

I truly wished I could have been privy to Hillary's thoughts (and maybe even comments) once Obama entered the primary and started becoming a serious canidate. I would bet even money she used the N-word more than once!

That is the only good that I have seen from Obama's election/re-election.

RickThai

So you don't think she will be the next Potus?

Originally Posted by sabang

So you don't think she will be the next Potus?

Unless she has a health problem, my guess is that she will try. One thing I've noticed about the Clintons is that everything they do has a political purpose.

Back when old Wicked Willie was battling his impeachment hearings for lying about his sexcapedes, old Hillary was showing up in photo ops, surrounded by poor black kids in NYC.

It didn't make any sense at the time, but it did later on when she ran for NY Senator.

As Secretary of State old Hillary spent zillions of taxpayer dollars, flying all over the world (more than any other SofS - 112 or so). She didn't seem to accomplish anything, but looking back, now she has "tons" of Foreign Affairs experience, something that will look good as she campaigns for POTUS.

RickThai

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by RickThai

As Secretary of State old Hillary spent zillions of taxpayer dollars, flying all over the world (more than any other SofS - 112 or so). She didn't seem to accomplish anything, but looking back, now she has "tons" of Foreign Affairs experience, something that will look good as she campaigns

There is no greater humiliation for any woman. than a staffer sucking your old man off when he is potus
She came back as a a winner. If she runs in 4 years time pretty much guaranteed to win.
The opposition have nothing to offer and she is the front runner next time around.

I think the overriding factor is not ".. the opposition have nothing to offer ...", so much as the government-dependent voters has reached a critical mass. This will not change until the USA hit's rick bottom (no money, no credit, and too much debt). Then things will get real interesting, real quick (Better stock up on ammunition and praise the founders of our country for the 2d Ammendment - those guys must have been clairovoiyant!).

RickThai

Obama's entire governing philosophy in one sentence - this 'person' is shameless

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

What an asshole...

Ohmygawd, Americans earning over $1,000,000 per year will see their temporary tax cuts not renewed. My bleeding heart weeps, along with that of every struggling American. O'Whatanasshole'bamas too. In a nation with third world levels of wealth inequality and approaching third world levels of government debt, what sort of radical socialist would make the rich pay a little more tax, heck even as much tax as the middle class pays would be nice.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama's entire governing philosophy in one sentence - this 'person' is shameless

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

What an asshole...

The President? Ignore the context of the statement and I'd say it is not the president who is ...

BTW, the article DOES say,

the problems lay in Mr. Boehner's inability to coax his rank-and-file to support a deal that raises taxes on higher-income Americans.

Those republicans, still cow-towing to their ultra-rich and greedy, good for nothing, can't pull their own weight Billionaires.

Really BM, who are the assholes?

Originally Posted by sabang

Ohmygawd, Americans earning over $1,000,000 per year will see their temporary tax cuts not renewed. My bleeding heart weeps, along with that of every struggling American. O'Whatanasshole'bamas too. In a nation with third world levels of wealth inequality and approaching third world levels of government debt, what sort of radical socialist would make the rich pay a little more tax, heck even as much tax as the middle class pays would be nice.

absolutely right.

the income inequality is NOT about some people and others not because some work harder and others are lazier.

This is about a system that is rigged. It's time to fix the problem.

What has Obama accomplished so far?

Democrats held their ground on the essentials — no cuts in benefits — while Republicans have just voted for a tax increase for the first time in decades.

Perspective on the Deal - NYTimes.com

That might just be bigger than HC reform.

^ it didn't happen yet, and it's still controversial for the majority of those Republicans

when you have Buffet calling publicly for Tax increases on the rich, something he did say quietly for decades, you know the Republicans main cause is lost

their only remaining agenda is now to serve the religious right,

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ it didn't happen yet, and it's still controversial for the majority of those Republicans

Got that right

Members email from floor: spending amendment doesn't have 218. Not likely to pass. Rules getting ready to move on Sen deal as is.

https://twitter.com/robertcostaNRO/s...62342944190464

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

Speaking of which, I think one more thing we can add to Obama’s list (early next year) will be: The Obama Tax Cuts

ta-dah,..............the Obama Tax Cuts

House of Representatives passed the Senate’s compromise bill to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.” The bill, dubbed the “American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (also known as The Obama Tax Cuts),” raised taxes on (some of) the wealthiest Americans, while punting several other budget decisions down the road, including whether or not the so-called “sequester” spending cuts will occur. Here are some important numbers from the bill’s resolution of the fiscal cliff’s tax side:

The first major tax increase for the wealthy in 20 years. Allowing the expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts amounts to the first major tax increase for the wealthiest Americans since the 1990s.

– The Bush tax cuts expire for just 0.7 percent of taxpayers. The expiration will occur on income in excess of $400,000 (or $450,000 for a couple). This translates into “a little over 1 million Americans” according to the Tax Policy Center. The capital gains and dividend tax will also increase to 20 percent for wealthy earners.

– The top 1 percent will pay an average of $73,633 more in taxes. Bloomberg News noted that, “among households with incomes between $500,000 and $1 million, taxes would go up by an average of $14,812.”

– 77 percent of households will see a tax hike. Due to the expiration of a cut in the payroll tax, most workers will see their taxes increase slightly in 2013. The expiration of the payroll tax cut will deal a significant blow to the economy.

– $4 trillion in deficits and $600 billion in revenue. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will increase the deficit by around $4 trillion over the next ten years compared to a world in which all of the Bush tax cuts expired. However, it raises about $600 billion more in revenue compared to the policies that were in place in 2012.

– $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue. As Americans for Tax Fairness noted, “This bill raises $620 billion over 10 years, but $1.5 trillion in budget cuts were already enacted last year; that means for every one dollar in new taxes there have been 2.5 dollars in spending cuts to reduce the deficit.”

– Two million unemployed workers see benefits saved. Without the extension included in the fiscal cliff deal, millions of workers would have seen their federal unemployment insurance pulled out from under them.

– Estate tax giveaway costs billions. The estate tax rate will increase slightly to 40 percent this year with a $5 million exemption, but it would have gone to 55 percent with a $1 million exemption in the absence of a deal. As the Atlantic’s Matt O’Brien noted, “Only 3,730 households will pay the estate tax next year if the exemption is set at $5 million, versus 47,170 if it’s set at $1 million.”

The bill also extended provisions of the farm bill that will prevent milk prices from spiking and included an important provision to help underwater homeowners.

The Obama Tax Cuts

So what are the opinions on the National defence Authorization Act?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

ta-dah,..............the Obama Tax Cuts

Tax cuts, huh?

Let's file this under "What Happens To The Low-Information Voter" & "Your Crows Are Coming Home To Roost"



If you go on Twitter you’ll find lots of stuff like this. The clueless-cool set who voted overwhelmingly for Obama are now wondering how come he said taxes weren’t going to go up on 98 percent of the American people when here’s their first paycheck and taxes went up.

Call it Schadenfreude if you like. It’s a nasty habit. But considering that Obama managed to get himself re-elected despite a record more suited for the guillotine by playing Santa Claus, and considering that the media has rightly cast the fiscal cliff deal as a victory for the president and a loss for the Republicans, there’s a valuable silver lining here.

You can’t blame this on the GOP. Obama owns this.

No Shit Sherlock He Owns It