The Big Obama Administration Thread

Remove all ads!

...because "Obama Wins! So What's Next?" looks like it's going on forever and it no longer seems appropriate since the election was some time ago.

 

Since this thread is about the Big Obama Administration....

The Obama administration is big. Really big... after all, size matters and it's really not how you use it (that's just something she says to be nice).

 

Wait, how is it bigger than the Bush administration?

(P.S.: actually, I don't care what she - whoever she is - says, but how you use a big administration is quite important )

 

Well, he's hired new people already, hasn't he? I could have sworn hearing someone say he's created new cabinet positions or something. How many people has he fired already? If he's hired more than he's fired, he's got a bigger administration (unless Bush let a number of people go near the end).

 

Come on, guys - this is cute and all, but I don't want the thread locked down...

 

Let's say we give Obama 1 year before we drop the hammer on him. I think that's fair. One year in which to implement some policies and keep (or not keep) his promises. I say this because it is too soon now to start judging his performance.

My question now is this: What measures should we use to judge his administration in February 2010? What do we want to see? What do we not want to see? What statistics will we use to determine if he has made progress and actually made a change in the way the American Government does business?

 

Well, since the big issue is the economy, I think the first numbers would be things like GDP, unemployment, stock market, etc. After that, for government, I'd say look at how many people and programs he's removed, how many he's added, how much has been saved and spent, and what has been added and taken away. On top of that, I'd say look at corruption charges and investigations. If those numbers are down, it's at least an indication he's made progress.

Incidentally, usually the Pres get's 100 days to make a difference. I understand giving Obama more time, simply because he's got so much on his plate, but I'm not sure about a whole year. Maybe 6 months. In the mean time, we can still comment on what he's doing, just hold back on the acclamations and denouncements a bit.

 

Now what fun would that be?

 

The Pres gets 100 days to lay out his policy and submit his first presidential budget that shows the direction he wants to take the nation. They also get 100 days to enact the beginning pieces of legislation that will move the country in that direction. However, when the main issue is the economy, the Pres is typically given much longer than 100 days. In fact, he has to be given more than 100 days, because just like you don't know you're in a recession until after you've been in one for quite some time (it was announced in November 2008 that we officially entered the current recession in December 2007), you don't know you're out of a recession until you've been out of it for quite some time. 100 days for something like turning the economy around is simply not a reasonable metric. Even if we were going to set a timetable of 6 months for getting out of the recession, it's not going to happen.

And history is on Obama's side in this as well. The last time we had a president elected during a significant recession was Reagan in November 1980, and he took office in January 1981. The economy did not turn around until mid-1982. I have never heard Regan disparaged for taking over a year to get the economy turned around. In fact, he is usually credited for doing the job very well, and getting us out of the recession pretty quickly.

 

Oh, I don't expect him to get us out by any means. I fully expect this recession could last several years, even under the best guidence, but I do expect him to enact practices that will begin to turn the economy around. I think 6 months is long enough to see something being done. Now that I think about it, it's unlikely that the economic numbers will reflect this, though unemployment may, but it's at least a good time to look at what he's done and see what the immediate effects have been, and what long-term effects may be.

 

Just so people have an idea what a Trillion dollars looks like.
http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

 

Unemployment should be expected to rise as long as the recession or depression keeps lasting. According to economic theory (and reality) there is a direct correlation between the decline of GDP and unemployment. Unless there is significant decline in productivity per worker the correlation will hold true.

The only way Obama would get to lower the productivity of the workingforce which might be done through shorter workshifts or employing the unemployed with arbitary unproductive tasks.

 

I was more thinking the rate of change of unemployment, as that's the measure of the rate (and direction) of change of the recession. Think of the recession as negative velocity. Rate of change of unemployment (a convenient measure) would then be acceleration. As long as acceleration is negavite, the recession continues to get worse, while positive acceleration (fewer job losses this quarter than last) would be positive acceleration. Once that is high enough/goes on long enough, velocity once again becomes positive. It may still take some time to get back to our starting position (actual GDP numbers, stock numbers, etc.) but we're going in the right direction. The recession has ended. In 6 months, I would like to see the beginning of fewer job losses.

 

I see what you are saying but considering the correlation between GDP and unemployment the same information could be produced through measuring growth. Of course it might be that unemployment statistics are updated more often in the US in which case I suppose holding it as a prime indicator would make sense.

 

We already knew what a trillion dollars looks like: The War in Iraq.

They have to get rid of all those toxic mortgage-backed securities. I believe the Republicans have a pretty good idea, which is to create a sort of dummy bank and drop all those securities into it, sort through them and sell them off. I hate having the taxpayers pay for several trillion dollars in bad loans that Wall Street is responsible for (and why Obama is reluctant to do it) . But if they can be sold off, and the housing market improves, maybe the govenment can make some money on them - eventually.

BTW, this is the current plan:

A lot of investors like the TALF idea, but to me it seems like putting out a fire with a long train of small bottles of water, which has been the Obama approach to tax cuts also.

 

You know it's funny that people praise obama as such a good speaker when in reality he is just a good reader.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/us/politics/06web-baker.html?_r=3&partner=rss
As many reps always knew but the dems wouldn't believe.

Wow, so memerable that he had to have it own a teleprompter.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/05/obama-cant-break-the-teleprompter-habit-either/

No teleprompter, crappy speechs

Cant you memorise at least one speech?

 

I know GWB is such a hard act to follow, considering his "fine" grammatical and rhetorical skills. Who else could make up so many new words?

 

Yep just like obama thinking the usa invented the automobile. WTH did he get that idea?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xySAXuCWnUQ&eurl=http://www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com/
Profits & Earnings Ratio???
Is he trying to talk about the Price to Earning Ratio? Darnit where's that teleprompter when you need it!!!

 

OK. Let's play:

Here's a classic Bushism:

Your turn, Martaug.

Edit: Sorry, I just couldn't wait on this one:

Here's one by GWB Ragusa would like:

 

Ah but chandos remember "hope & change"?
We now have a smart president that won't stick his foot in his mouth all the time.
(looks at the quotes & tapes of obama) Dangit we was fooled!!!


P.S. Hey Tal can we get the Sphene changed to it's new name of Titanite? It's just cooler.