Who's more to blame for the economy? Obama or Congress

[tytlyf]

Sorry, don't agree with you. Do you really think that she has hobnobbed with the Hollywood entertainment society. I seriously don't believe they would even admit knowing her. Also, wonder why Obama denigrates the 1%'ers yet want's to associate with them as much as possible? Just a question!

I just don't understand why republicans try to smear the president this way. He hob-nobs with hollywood? All presidents do! Did you miss Clint Eastwood?
Why do we hear nothing about Mr. Hollywood Ronald Reagan being a Celebrity in chief? After all, he was a hollywood actor?

 

[Storm]

I just don't understand why republicans try to smear the president this way. He hob-nobs with hollywood? All presidents do! Did you miss Clint Eastwood?
Why do we hear nothing about Mr. Hollywood Ronald Reagan being a Celebrity in chief? After all, he was a hollywood actor?

General rule of thumb: when they do something, it's patriotic. When we do it, it's morally degenerate.

I believe the word is "hypocrisy."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I just don't understand why republicans try to smear the president this way. He hob-nobs with hollywood? All presidents do! Did you miss Clint Eastwood?
Why do we hear nothing about Mr. Hollywood Ronald Reagan being a Celebrity in chief? After all, he was a hollywood actor?

Exactly.

Charlton Heston, who was once a Democrat, became a republican and campaigned for Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush.

Then there's this...
Celebrity 2012 GOP Endorsements: List of Stars Supporting Republicans

 

[Alceste]

Exactly.

Charlton Heston, who was once a Democrat, became a republican and campaigned for Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush.

Then there's this...
Celebrity 2012 GOP Endorsements: List of Stars Supporting Republicans

And this:

 

[Storm]

And then there was the Clint Eastwood... thing at the RNC.

 

[idav]

Who's more responsible for the economy and recovery (slow?) we are in?
Obama or Congress?

They are both equally responsible, there job is to try and pass more laws that will keep the top one percent (rich people and banks) from hoarding all the money.

 

[Copernicus]

The question, who is to blame for the economy, is phrased in such a way as to allow two choices -- Obama or Congress. Given those two choices, it is clear that Congress bears the greater responsibility. If the question were broadened to Obama, Congress, or the People, then we could discuss the metaphysical proposition that a People without money should spend their way out of a recession. Nice. And then we could go on to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a non-existent pin.

I like Sunstone's answer the best. There is plenty of blame to go around. The people voted (or stayed home) to create a divided Congress that went into almost total paralysis after 2010. Republicans believe that the economy will only recover if we take measures to radically deregulate and cut taxes on the wealthy, whereas Democrats believe that we must redistribute wealth to stimulate demand and job growth. The public is divided on the best approach, and that is why their government is divided.

 

[Storm]

They are both equally responsible, there job is to try and pass more laws that will keep the top one percent (rich people and banks) from hoarding all the money.

It's Congress' job to draft and pass the budget, though.

 

[Copernicus]

It's Congress' job to draft and pass the budget, though.

I think that it is the President's job to draft the budget. The Congress then works with that draft to pass a budget.

 

[Storm]

I think that it is the President's job to draft the budget. The Congress then works with that draft to pass a budget.

I'm pretty sure he just signs it.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm pretty sure he just signs it.

The President always drafts and submits the budget proposal to Congress. Congress sends a final budget bill to the President for his signature.

Here is the way Wikipedia describes the Federal Budget:

The Budget of the United States Government is the President's proposal to the U.S. Congress which recommends funding levels for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. Congressional decisions are governed by rules and legislation regarding the federal budget process. Budget committees set spending limits for the House and Senate committees and for Appropriations subcommittees, which then approve individual appropriations bills to allocate funding to various federal programs.

 

[Thief]

I've seen a recent speech by an economics professor.....Richard Wolff.
9/12/12
To continue this thread you might want to review this speech.

It demonstrates cause and effect in terms of economics.

To say that current authority is at fault is naive.
To say it can't be fixed is also naive.

But it will take a change of economic law that most people won't like.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've seen a recent speech by an economics professor.....Richard Wolff.
9/12/12
To continue this thread you might want to review this speech.
It demonstrates cause and effect in terms of economics.
To say that current authority is at fault is naive.
To say it can't be fixed is also naive.
But it will take a change of economic law that most people won't like.

A reason we fixate on the president is that he is the single most responsible person.
Congress, as a group, is harder to focus upon despite greater effect.

 

[Thief]

A reason we fixate on the president is that he is the single most responsible person.
Congress, as a group, is harder to focus upon despite greater effect.

I won't blame the guy that can't fix it.
He didn't set things in motion.

If you check the speech I mentioned you will find this current economy to be the result of events decades previous.
Fixing this current scheme of things is beyond one body of men in office.

Our economy is OUR economy.

Fixing it begins with how you deal with your fellowman.
THAT begins where the money changes hands most often.
(your paycheck)

 

[Sunstone]

The classic approach to the economy would be sufficient stimulus spending now followed by paying down the debt once the economy got booming again. Unfortunately, Congress has been unwilling to approve anywhere near the spending needed, largely because the leadership has made it their mission to destroy Obama, rather than save the economy. The stimulus package of 2009 was just barely enough to stop a full scale great depression, but only about a third of what was needed to get the economy booming again.

 

[Thief]

Has anyone seen a docudrama called..."Too Big To Fail"....?

It describes events leading to the TARP event.

 

[Revoltingest]

The classic approach to the economy would be sufficient stimulus spending now followed by paying down the debt once the economy got booming again. Unfortunately, Congress has been unwilling to approve anywhere near the spending needed, largely because the leadership has made it their mission to destroy Obama, rather than save the economy. The stimulus package of 2009 was just barely enough to stop a full scale great depression, but only about a third of what was needed to get the economy booming again.

That's a plausible speculation, but only that (being untestable, ya know). And there is the risk that greatly increased stimulus & bail-out spending
could exacerbate the problem, for there would be an even larger amount of debt to repay. But the biggest problem I see with it is government's
injecting the cash in an unproductive fashion. Example: Gov bails out large failing banks by giving them money, instead of attacking the root of
their failure, ie, defaulting borrowers. So the banks survive, yet the borrowers continue to fail. Were I to lean more socialistic, I'd favor spending
the money where it would do the greater good....save the borrowers, & the banks will survive too. But alas, banks are more politically connected
then the unwashed slobs who borrow their money.

 

[Thief]

That's a plausible theory, but only that (being untestable, ya know). Moreover, there is the risk that greatly increased stimulus & bail-out spending could exacerbate the problem, for there would be an even larger amount of debt to repay. But the biggest problem I see with it is government's injecting the cash in an unproductive fashion. Example: Gov bails out large failing banks by giving them money, instead of attacking the root of their failure, ie, defaulting borrowers. So the banks survive, yet the borrowers continue to fail.

That's correct. It's a paradox.

In the movie mentioned, the government allowed Lehman to go under.
The government had thought it prudent to allow big banks to suffer what they do.

When the first institution failed, the run turned to another.
Merrill Lynch was next. (I think I got the names right)

Then it was discovered AIG was also in trouble for having insured so much of what such institutions do.
Only then realization of the where it would go became apparent.
Even France was on the phone.....'FIX IT!"

You gotta see the movie!

I don't want to spoil the end for anyone viewing this post.
but it's not really the end.

 

[idav]

Has anyone seen a docudrama called..."Too Big To Fail"....?

It describes events leading to the TARP event.

I've seen that and was totally blown away. I think my hand facepalmed threw my skull by the end of it all

 

[Revoltingest]

You gotta see the movie!

Perhaps some day.