craschworks / obama

Why is Obama’s popularity declining?

24-Aug-09

theferret

Obama would not only have to sell America on a new health care plan but defend the merits of government and talk about the limitations of the free market, which the Republicans have demonized and fetishized respectively

Sure, some Republicans _claim_ to support free markets. But what do they do once they’re actually in office? Take a look at this graph:

Adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending under Bush increased by more than it did under under LBJ (and every president in between). LBJ also had a war to fund, not to mention a few little programs such as Medicare, and Medicaid.

So a lot of people who were worried about the unchecked growth of government spending under Bush figured Obama couldn’t do much worse. After all, in his entire two terms, Clinton only increased spending by half the amount Bush did in just his first term.

Unfortunately, once in office, Obama has increased spending so much as to make Bush look like a Depression-era grandma. Take a look at this graph of annual deficits under Obama:

Obama has pushed for trillions in corporate welfare to prop up GM, AIG, Fannie Mae, and Goldman Sachs. His plan to “get us out of Iraq” will still leave 50,000 troops in country, and he’s increased troops in Afghanistan. His record on civil liberties has proven little better than Bush’s when it comes to gay rights, warrantless wiretapping, torture, and drugs.

And now he’s pushing for Obamacare, a 1000+ page Frankenstein monster of spending and regulation, that neither he nor anyone in Congress has even read in full.

So, yes, Obama’s having trouble selling his monster to the public. Bush’s approval ratings were low not because he supported free markets, but because he was fascist spendthrift. Now that Obama’s proving himself to be more of the same, is it any wonder that he’s losing support?

The National Debt Road Trip

11-Jun-09

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion

03-Apr-09

Bush left office with a budget deficit of $482 billion, the largest ever in nominal dollars (although not the largest as a percentage of GDP).

Bush was roundly criticized (deservedly so) for increasing the budge deficit. How often did you hear during the campaign that Bush “turned a budget surplus into a budget deficit”?

So what will the Obama administration do? Tighten some belts, scrimp and save? Reverse the policies that led to the deficit in the first place?

Hahahaha….no.

The Congressional Budget Office’s projected deficit for the 2009 fiscal year ending on Sept. 30 would amount to 13.1 percent of expected gross domestic product—a level not seen since World War Two. In January, the budget office had forecast a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009.

As a reminder, here’s what $1 trillion looks like:

Each of the individual cubes represents a pallet of $100 million dollars, enough to buy 4000 brand new Toyota Prius.

And they’re not done spending yet. The Obama administration has pledged
$12.8 Trillion for the financial bailout, almost equal to the entire GDP of the United States:

The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

The CBO estimates that the Obama administration will double the national debt over the next decade, from $4.4 trillion to $9.3 trillion.

Remember this Moveon.org ad?

It appears that the Obama administration interpreted it not as a cautionary tale, but as a blueprint for action.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll see much true change until we change the institutional incentives that result in bad government. (Remember that McCain suspended his campaign to push for the first $750 billion bailout.)

Until then, prepare for heavy taxes, inflation, and social unrest.

Amazing Obama inauguration panoramic photo

26-Jan-09

Amazing pic of the Obama inauguration.

Be sure to scroll into the picture. Via reichart

Bush spy program targeted reporters

23-Jan-09

Scary, if true:

Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Wednesday that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.
…
The National Security Agency had access to all Americans’ communications — faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications,” Tice claimed. “It didn’t matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications.

Via, mcsnee.

Of course, Obama wants to end the program, right? Change and all, you know.

Nah.

The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.

Via zarex.

My feelings about the inauguration

20-Jan-09

Obama administration plans to make national gun ban permanent

07-Nov-08

Via On Concerns Over Gun Control, Gun Sales Are Up

“We’re not really sure who is promoting the concept that a change in federal administrations might affect firearms possession rights,” said an agency spokesman, Lance Clem…

Um, how about Obama’s stated plans to ban guns?:

As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Change You Can Believe In

03-Oct-08

Well, the House just served the American public with a $700 billion crap sandwich with $170 billion side of pork.

So, how did Obama, champion of change, friend of the little guy, vote?

He voted for it, of course.

And twisted the arms of Congressional Black Caucus members–who originally voted against it–to change their vote.

McCain’s behavior was even worse.

But McCain doesn’t inspire beautiful delusions. Few expect anything but more of the same from him.

But Obama? Many Democrats believe that if only one of their guys, the good guys, got into power, things would be different.

And it’s true, the performance of government does depend to some extent on the competence of the person in office.

But the root problem isn’t Bush. Or McCain. Or Obama. Nor our Congressmen and women. I wager if you spent much time around our leaders, you’d discover that most of them truly believe in what they do, are reasonably good people, and are trying to do the right thing.

Our government leaders performs poorly due to the perverse incentives they face. And as long as those incentives remain, no matter who you feed into the grinder, you’ll still get a crap sandwich at the end.

So if you want change you can believe in, you have to change the systemic incentives.

Until then, please enjoy your sandwich.

09-Jul-08

Candidate of change, my ass

Obama: the 6% change

04-Feb-08

If Obama represents “change “, how much change can we expect from him?

The Senate has held 645 roll-call votes while Obama and Clinton served together in the Senate. Their votes differed only 40 times. 94% of the time they voted identically. (1)

Also, “….On Congressional Quarterly’s tally of how often senators support Bush’s positions on issues coming before the Senate, in 2005 Clinton earned a 31 out of 100 rating (with 100 meaning totally supportive of Bush) and Obama got a 33.

On the National Journal scale of liberal to conservative positions, again based on roll call votes in 2005, Obama rated an 82.5 (meaning he was more liberal than 82.5 percent of his Senate colleagues) and Clinton a 79.8…” (2)

Of course, that Obama would change so little is probably a large part of his popularity. If he actually stood for significant change, he’d be polling the same numbers as Kucinich or Paul.

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004.html

2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15920730/

craschworks

Contents

RSS Feeds

Search

Categories