E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe New York Times: “‘It’s not a lack of plans or policies that is the problem here,’ Mr. Obama said Monday in his first public comments on the economy since Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s credit rating last Friday. ‘It’s a lack of political will in Washington. It’s the insistence on drawing lines in the sand, a refusal to put what’s best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology. And that’s what we need to change.’”
Mr. Obama then offered, with no modification or expansion, that he would be presenting recommendations to a Congressional committee charged with creating a deficit reduction plan, but hewed to the same central points that he had made during the debt ceiling negotiations, principally that spending cuts must be accompanied by tax increases.
The Boston Globe’s front page headline, with a photo of a stock broker’s head in his hand: “An avalanche of worry.”
The New York Daily News’ cover: “Panic!” over a broker’s shocked-looking face and a zig-zagging down arrow.
The conservative New York Post plays politics and tries to put it on Obama: “Tanks a lot!” reads the cover headline over a grim-faced Obama.
But memo to conservatives and Republicans: If you’re going to pin the stock market’s drop on Obama, then you have to admit his presidency has been widely successful -- just judging from the Dow. When he took office, the Dow was around 8,000. Now it’s 10,800-plus, even after the past two weeks.
DNC Chairwoman Tweeted that members of the Tea Party were “‘tyrants’ who blocked a more comprehensive bargain on the debt ceiling,” The Hill writes.
“President Obama will unveil the first-ever federal fuel efficiency standards Tuesday for a range of heavy-duty trucks, a move the White House is casting as a key part of its plan to cut foreign oil imports and slash harmful air pollution,” The Hill writes.
Leave a Comment:
How can any rational person condone the president leaving washington to campaign during the present problems our nation is facing?Our house is burning down and he goes to the movies????My family and myself had voted for the "change" but his priorities are not in order and America Is not first in his eyes just himself and his cronies! He has lost our vote!
One thing is for sure: It's not in Barack Obama to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of his actions and policies. He still won't own this economy and the exploding spending spiral, reminding us at every turn that our problems are a result of what he "inherited" from President Bush.
Instead of seeking to soothe the nation on word of the downgrade by Standard & Poor's, Obama played golf, prepared for more campaign fundraisers and avoided the cameras -- for a change. But there can be little doubt he was strategizing about whom to blame for this unfolding catastrophe.
The first and most obvious choice would probably have been his treasury secretary, Timmy Geithner -- except that to blame Geithner would have been tantamount to blaming himself; Geithner is Obama's guy. Nix that.
So why not blame Europe and the global markets? Well, there was some of that, but that's a bit too far from home, so to speak. An Alinsky-model target is usually more accessible and less sympathetic -- you know, someone or some entity against whom one can gin up white-hot hate.
So he settled on blaming S&P itself -- the proverbial messenger -- and who else? The evil tea party for the debt ceiling impasse. Pathetic. Oh, yes, and for good measure, his liberal colleague Rep. Barney Frank threw in the military and said he hopes the downgrade will force large military spending cuts.
An unrepentant Geithner immediately took the offense and insultingly attacked S&P for its decision to downgrade our credit rating. "I think S&P's shown really terrible judgment. And they've handled themselves very poorly, and they've shown a stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math."
S&P's managing director, David Beers, didn't receive the slander sitting down. He said he had "absolutely" no second thoughts about the decision. He also said it was a gross exaggeration to suggest that the downgrade was mainly responsible for the market sell-off, pointing to the extreme volatility of the market in the period preceding the downgrade.
Consider also the arrogance of this administration for lecturing anyone else about his lack of budgetary acumen. We've not experienced a financial train wreck in our national history so directly traceable to the White House.
"taxweary" your name is a joke. Taxes haven't been lower since Eisenhower was in office. People like you, who support the Tea Party actions in sacrificing our credit rating to keep tax loopholes open for the super rich, have done our country irreparable harm. How about you apologise to us?
Dems begged and pleaded with Republicans not to play chicken with the debt ceiling. But Republicans knew what they were doing. McConnell said, it was a "hostage worth ransoming", that "we have set a new template" and "must see that we continue to achieve"". Some achievement.
S & P's citing Republicans refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy was omitted from local news reports across the country. Cantor repeated yesterday that GOP would not budge from that position.
All of this chaos and fear is heavily orchestrated by the corporate right. This has been in the playbook for many years.
Bill's supposition on the content of the presidents character not withstanding; when John Boehner claims that he got 98% of what he asked for in the debt deal, and that deal led to the current downgrade and the spiral in the markets, who is really to blame? I don't blame the president for not taking responsibility for the state of things when others are actively taking credit for them. you can not have it both ways: you can't claim to have gotten virtually everything you asked for in a plan while blaming the other side for that plans failure. It is intellectually dishonest and narcissistic in nature.
You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be appalled by what transpired leading up to the S&P downgrade. Watching House Republicans talk about holding the economy hostage, shooting the hostage, etc. was unnerving to those of us who object to gambling with America's reputation for paying its debts. I completely agree that the political system at this moment is dysfunctional. The 2010 House hasn't passed a single jobs bill. They haven't addressed any of our nation's problems. They created a worse economic situation with these debt dramatics. AND all indictations point to their doubling down in order to prevent any tax increases. It's disgusting, stupid and ridiculous.
Dems begged and pleaded with Republicans not to play chicken with the debt ceiling. But they knew what they were doing. McConnell said, it was a "hostage worth ransoming", that "we have set a new template" and "must see that we continue to achieve"". Some achievement.
S & P's citing Republicans refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy was omitted from local news reports across the country. Cantor repeated yesterday that GOP would not budge from that position.
All of this chaos and fear is heavily orchestrated by the corporate right. This has been in the playbook for many years.
I saw Cantor's letter to his House members, doubling down on refusing to close tax loopholes, at the expense of working to create jobs. It made me sick.
I'm not by nature a conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but wonder, since the majority of voters want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, if the Republicans aren't playing to what George W Bush playfully called his "base," the wealthiest 2% in America? I think the Republicans are ignoring the will of the people in working to please the corporate decision makers - all for the sake of increasing campaign donations. THere is no other explanation I can see, for why House Republicans are protecting tax loopholes at the expense of the whole country.
The human mind is an open book where truth should be written
into its pages. When false beliefs infest the mind it can lead to strange behavior.
People are taught from birth the learnings of their parents and society as a whole.
Once people reach adult hood, they are responsible for rewriting their minds based
on observation and learning. Many of the current groups of republicans have little
use for objective observations and hold on to beliefs that have no
justification in real world learning. Their beliefs are not truths but group
think like many cults exhibit. They chose to believe in a dream world where
facts get in the way of their beliefs and are ignored. It is their false world view that dictates
their actions and they act out of faith and not logic. So , it may not be a conspiracy
as much as it is a cult.
Salt Grass, I see what you mean. The Tea Party movement seems to have more in common with religion, than with science. It's one thing to believe in God on faith alone, without needing proof, it's another to believe that tax cuts grow the economy when economic data shows the contrary.
Tax cuts is just one example.
The austerity plan in Britain seems to be another example of false belief. It is
working so well people are rejoicing in the streets.
Double speak at its worst.
Obama contends that "drawing lines in the sand" must stop. Then he goes on to say "Mr. Obama then offered, with no modification or expansion, that he would be presenting recommendations to a Congressional committee charged with creating a deficit reduction plan, but hewed to the same central points that he had made during the debt ceiling negotiations, principally that spending cuts must be accompanied by tax increases.
That sounds a whole lot like drawing a line in the sand. "With no modification" and "hewed to the same central point" and "must" do not seem open to negotiation. While I agree that either tax revenues need to increase (preferably by the expansion of the economy) or tax spending needs to be reduced (by eliminating loop holes that largely favor the wealthy), that is not my point. It is Obama's inflexibility and continued double speak and creative accounting (along with the deferral of virtually all of his cost savings until after his 2nd term presidency in over) that has caused the country to become jittery. One of Obama's favorite sayings is "let me make this perfectly clear." Line drawing sounds a lot like that.
Good luck America. We will all need it with our current cadre of political leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike. They are simply out of touch with reality. The electorate will draw a line in the sand at the next election. I will be on the side of fiscal sanity!
All the article is stating is that the President didn't reveal what he was going to recommend, only that it would follow the same basic set of goals he had tried for previously. It did not indicate that he would stake an unmovable position.
Only-Grey
My sense of the meaning of phrases and words such as "with no modification" and "must" differs from yours. To each his own. The meaning of words has become blurred in this political debate. For example, since when has a reduction in the increase in Federal spending anticipated in the next 10 years actually become a reduction in the national debt.
Was it Wimpy in the Pop Eye cartoons that was always going to pay back his debt tomorrow? Pure silliness. Pure spin. Pure Washington DC.
the context of the article as it pertains to the phrase, "with no modification or expansion" does not pertain to the detail of what he will be proposing. It is possible that the article is just badly written and confusing but I do not see this as detailing anything substantive about what will be in his proposal.
As for the comment about what the plan must contain; I see this as the President remind the opposition that what they reject out of hand needs to be included in order to generate the most robust path of action possible. It is less a statement of his unwillingness to compromise, which I think by now we all know he is more than willing to do, and more a reminder that the other side needs to compromise as well or we wont get anything done.
Only_Grey-
I agree that the most robust path of action possible includes increases in tax revenues.
The issue is how that is accomplished. Is it my taxing the 3% of the wealthiest and passing own some of the increase to the remaining middle class. Or is it increasing the burden on the wealthiest and increase to a lesser degree on everyone else. In order to change the entitlement mentality, we have to send a signal that no one is exempt from helping this country turn its economic fortures around.
And it is not enough to see that entitlements will be decreased. The 97% of those not characterized as wealthy also have to write a check to the Treasury. Without that act, there is no ownership of the problem or participation in the solution.
Have a good night.
Come on, Mystified Tom, saying that there must be a balanced approach doesn't constrain the options much at all.
Remember that one reason S&P downgraded us was because they thought the Bush tax-cuts would never go away.
The extremist Tea-publicans tried my-way-or-the-hwy tax cuts only, and we got screwed. Sure, long term debt reduction has to take place, but one way to do this is to create jobs and thereby increase revenue. To create jobs some sort of EFFECTIVE government action is needed (other than cutting taxes and waiting for trickle-down, which 2000-2008 has shown doesn't work). The federal government can engage in programs like: rebuidlng our crumbling infrastructure, funding state governments to keep from firing policemen, firefighters and teachers, invest in green energy, which by it very nature is decentralized and localized (wind farms could be built through the wind corridor of the midwest, solar power in the southwest, tide-power alongs the coasts, etc (this would immediately create local jobs, an exportable technology, and bring down the cost of oil), help out STEM students (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math). Also, companies could be encouraged to repatriate their foreign investments, in exchange for a lower tax rate, but the collected revenues would be used for creating new jobs. How about increasing the tax rates on the super-wealthy, but an exemption would be granted for jobs actually created?
One thing I find odd is that no one but I seem to remember back to the early 1990's, when everyone talking about the national debt threatening to burden our children and grandchildren. By 2000, thanks to the fine work of the Clinton administration, we had a balanced budget. This can happen again, if we allow ourselves to do something more creative than merely cut taxes and cut the budget.
annica from s.f.
Clinton is often raised as the person who knew how to do it. But even through he balanced the budget, the national debt increased during his Presidency (even in the years the budget was balanced). That fact is conveniently not disclosed. His trick was to change how expenditures were recorded (an accounting trick). The national debt, while not dramatically, actually increased.
Spending, for both good and bad reasons, is simply out of control.
Here are some of the numbers:
The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases
Congressional Research Service 4
Table 1. Components of Debt Subject to Limit, FY1996-FY2009
(in billions of current dollars and as percentage of GDP)
Year Debt Debt Subject% of GDP
Limit to Limit
1996 $5,500 $5,137.2 65.7%
1997 5,950 5,327.6 64.2%
1998 5,950 5,439.4 62.2%
1999 5,950 5,567.7 60.1%
2000 5,950 5,591.6 57.0%
2001 5,950 5,732.8 56.6%
2002 6,400 6,161.4 58.9%
2003 7,384 6,737.6 61.4%
2004 7,384 7,333.4 62.5%
2005 8,184 7,871.0 64.0%
2006 8,965 8,420.3 64.2%
2007 9,815 8,921.3 65.4%
2008 10,615 9,960.0 70.0%
2009 12,104 11,909.8 84.1%
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Treasury Bulletin, June 2001 and
December 2006. Bureau of the Public Debt, Monthly Statement of Public Debt, various issues. CRS calculations.
mlevit@crs.loc.gov, 7-7792
If you really want to create jobs, Remove Obama from Office, Repeal every thing he has done since being in office, make the "Bush tax cuts" perm. While this will not fix the dept and spending problems, it will create an atomsphere with the real "job creators" to create jobs.
When democrats want to put ALL entitlements on the table for reform come back & talk to me about the debit ceiling & the financial crsis we are in. Democrats had a chance in 2009-2010 to raise the debit ceiling when they had the total control of the government & they refused to do it, because they knew they'd get NO Republician support. Why not get your party to pass a budget, then again come talk to me about the debit ceiling
I think while all the politicians are out makiing themselves look like the good guy, lock the buildings in washington and not letting them back in....I for one would start from scratch and by not locking them out we will be further in the destruction of America by letting them in.......I feel sorry for those who are giving there lives so freedom means something along with being a proud American, but comming home to a country in total disfunction doesnt do justice for them......unemployment,,,,lets just say the list goes on.
You are the President of our country and the buck should stop there, get rid of the lines in the sand! We should all one people, one party, united, equal. So sick of democrats vs. republicans. A new age needs to come into being.
"Judy" one can only hope. Term limits need to happen, no one in congress and senate should serve more than two terms. Our founding fathers warned us of "career politicians". You don't draw lines if you aren't beholden to any special interests..
Obama: It's not my fault. I don't know how to fix it but it's still not my fault.
Creating an, "atmosphere" is not a plan of action. And atmosphere can be created with a fog machine and some soft music; it doesn't mean that anything will happen. This argument that the administrations policies fosters an atmosphere of uncertainty sounds like a justification by those who just don't want to do something. If business people are so easily cowed by their own fears and insecurities, or more to the point the greed of their shareholders, then perhaps they should step aside and make room for someone that has the fortitude to make hard decisions. Isn't that the kind of person most Right Wing allies want in charge of things?
It's the first step toward one. Businesses plan out 5 to 10 years. When they see or don't know what the government is going to do next, then they just keep thier money or send it off shore until the government does create an, "atmosphere" where they can plan. ObamaCare is a good example. We are just now starting to find out what is in it and businesses are starting to lock up because they can't afford it. The Bush tax cuts are another example. To only make these cuts last for 2 years, is/was stupid. They should have let them expire or made then go another 10 years. Right now, with Obama yelling about taxing the "rich" even more, why would they try to expand a business when it will just cost them more money in the long run OR they don't know what taxes they will face in the next year or 2. Uncertainty is the biggest job killer and Obama and the Dems are great at creating an atomsphere of uncertainty.
Its too bad that ignorance isn't painful