The lead story in today’s New York Times (1/12/10), written by Sewell Chan, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David E. Sanger, focused on allies’ complaints about Barack Obama’s economic policies:
There was no way to avoid discussion of the fundamental differences of economic strategy…. Major disputes broke out between Washington and China, Britain, Germany and Brazil.
Each rejected core elements of Mr. Obama’s strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. Several major nations continued to accuse the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar last week in an effort to put the costs of America’s competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home.
You see the influence of Hoovernomics on the story, as “tough measures to rein in spending at home” are taken for granted as an answer to “America’s competitive troubles”–rather than a sure way to exacerbate those troubles, as countries like Ireland, Spain and Greece are demonstrating anew (Guardian, 11/12/10).
After quoting German Chancellor Angela Merkel lecturing Obama (“I am not one, and Germany is not one, who says growth and fiscal consolidation are contradictory”), the story throws in an observation that has the effect of validating the conservative politician’s pro-austerity rhetoric: “Mrs. Merkel is credited with avoiding spending heavily on stimulus programs and emerging with the most successful recovery in Europe.”
There’s a couple things wrong here: It’s true that Merkel is credited with avoided stimulus, but in reality Germany had Europe’s biggest stimulus program–82 billion euros, or $110 billion. (Germany’s economy is roughly one-fourth the size of the U.S.’s.)
Secondly, the phrase “most successful recovery in Europe” conceals the fact that Germany’s recovery, so far, has been less successful than the United States’, at least in terms of GDP growth–from the latest figures available, the U.S. is at 99.4 percent of its pre-recession GDP, while Germany is at 97.3 percent. Pointing this out, though, might have put a wet blanket on what the Times obviously felt was a stirring call for responsible fiscal policy.
It is not just Germany that has rejected Obamas economic moves.The summit has shown that most of the world see his moves as……well is insane too strong a word?Only under Obama would countries who are only slightly removed from communist ideologies be lecturing us on responsible capitalism.
Hoover also advocated a trade war through Smoot-Hawley. See the Democrats recent demagoguery on China. There is also a tone of hypocrisy for President Obama to send Tim Geithner over to China to complain about currency manipulation while Obama and Bernanke are essentially doing the same thing to the dollar through “stimulus” and “quantitative easing”.
Michael e. You need to learn how to read but first take off your partisan glasses with which you view everything.
He does it all with his eyes wide shut, Raymond.
The irresponsible report belies that with a common currency the European countries can not to have independent recovery curves- all of European union must be evaluated together. Unless of course, one wants to consider each American state separately.
“Hoovernomics” is what lead to “hoovervills”. Shanty towns of displaced unemployed. President Obama, unfortunately seems destined to repeat history by not learning from it. Having failed to communicate his limited success at preventing further erosion with a half-harted stimulus program, he seems ready to throw it all away and cave at this point to those who will punish the innocent to protect the guilty. “This will end badly and we will be lucky to survive”. Mr. President, Resign, along with Vice President Biden, effective innoguration day. Let President Boehner have the honor of completing the fall. Begin an information campaign to try to educate the American Electorate as to why this is necessary. If not, you will be blamed and the fools will take over in 2012 and sieze controll for at least 4 years and maybe forever. You’re about to give them all they want anyway, make them take ownership as well. Take one for the future of America and maybe the world. I’m going keep on proposing this until someone can explain to me why it’s a bad idea and if so, what’s a better thing to do.
Naturaldave….Obama spent more than all the presidents from washington to Reagan in 18 months.That is not a half hearted stym.The result was half hearted as expected.To say he could of bankrupt our country even more is just…..heaping worse upon bad.AS far as your idea I love out of the box things like this.And I agree the Republicans should be held accountable from the day they take over just as Obama should. But You forget the level of Narcissism all these presidents have in their DNA to believe they would just step down.For the sake of their party?For the sake of their supposed beliefs?For the future of the country?Pa-lease get real!They could give a hoot.If Obama cared about all that he would never of run.He threw his party under a bus for his madness.Bush was no better.You need to change your name here to Innocent Dave.
“Obama spent more than all the presidents from washington to Reagan in 18 months….”
That’s not true….the actual junk stat is “more national debt held by the public was added in the first 18 months of the Obama administration than the total amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.”
It’s rubbish in a number of ways, of course. The national debt from Washington through Carter was less than one trillion. 12 years of Reagan/Bush 41 added $3.2 trillion.
It goes without saying that the debt increased because of less revenue in than spending out, two wars and the Bush tax cuts.
Sorry that is Congressional Budget office stat.It stands.Call it what you will.Spending… Dept…
WE are printing another trillion as of last week.The war— is now being payed down.(Not the Afghan yet)As it was it was only a percentage over pentagon budget.A drop in the bucket of the massive collapse.Tax cuts generated income in the economy.Bush spent too much period.I agree wholeheartedly.But Obamas like will never be seen again ….hopefully.
WE will soon be able to say that Obama inflicted more cost than all the presidents put together.Next…THE WORLD!Of course it may stop when we completely collapse.Time is short
Watching michael e struggle with basic economics and tax policy is like watching a starfish working with a can opener.
Ah me old comrade Jacques… doing the thorazine shuffle, and retelling old jokes till the stars fall from the sky.I must ask you….and I mean no harm….Are you aware you have made that statement in these blogs before?Actually pretty often.The starfish thing….Dont worry it …..just wondering if you remembered doing it
A quick google search reveals the CBO never said any such thing.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=cbo+Obama+spent+more+than+all+the+presidents+from+washington+to+Reagan+in+18+months&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=d33e6c9c35dcd7a0
What kind of troll just makes stuff up?
Its like arguing with a second grader.DAddy help me find- help me find.If you cant find the statement I made about the level of debt and spending being equal to all the presidents from Washington to Regan than I am at a loss.ACtually it is all a lie.When all is factored in the spending is many times that.
It can’t be found for a simple reason : the CBO never said “Obama spent more than all the presidents from Washington to Reagan in 18 months.”
It IS like arguing with a second grader. What kind of troll just makes stuff up?
nellevad, re: Michael e. your are so right. and he continues with the idiocy he maintains as good economic policy. Tax cuts do not cause small business to create jobs. Bechtel a billionaire company is called a small business. Small businesses file income tax as S Corporations because the tax rate is less. Actors, authors, hedge fund managers do not hire employees and they are all “small businesses” that also file as S Corporations. Just like Koch Industries is an S Corporation filing small business. The Tax cuts for the top 2 per cent have only 3% of all small business to be effected. Although 50 % of small businesses’ income comes from this group. Also, 300 economists have suggested more spending by the government to create demand which is what drives job creation, not the so called Republicans’ notion of uncertainty that small businesses feel about tax cuts therefore making them unsure of what to do. The stimulus created 3.5 million jobs, 1/3 of that stimulus was in the form of tax cuts for all; lawmakers who voted against the stimulus clamored to get the funds and the credit for the jobs it created. The tax cuts have been in place since 2001 and 2003; so, if tax cuts create jobs then why is unemployment at 9.6 million unless without those very tax cuts unemployment would be at 15-20%???? I’d say President Obama and the Democrats have at least tried to do something for the country, besides obstruct, say no, delay and just oppose everything and the Dems end up not disseminating what they have done while letting the Republicans define the incorrect narrative while being demonized by the right wing noise machine and FOX noise. Unfortunately it cost them the House in 2010. Go Democrats in 2012!!!! If the Republicans haven’t destroyed everything by then.
“It’s like arguing with a second grader.”
Ach! Michael e iz projecting again! I zuggezt therapy!