Yet another rat jumps off the sinking ship.

[zsdersw]

I did not mention the GOP.

Some GOPers play pretend and dress up like tea parties to steal votes they don't deserve. Not a shred of integrity in any of them, but hey, they pay lip service to the idea.

Name one Democrat who does.

Lip service is what politicians do best.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, because we all know the economy and our economic policies have been such a resounding smashing success, it's incredibly hard to find any issue to be upset about. :biggrin:

Judging by the latest polls (see my earlier post), the people (especially independents) are starting to understand where the blame lies.

No thread would be complete without the usual 'The American People are starting to come to whatever position I hold'.

 

[lothar]

What idiot would want to be working with fed government permanently for a $191k salary when he can earn $465+k teaching at the University of Chicago?

Sounds to me like he did the right thing. I would have done the same thing.
Go on temporary leave at University of Chicago, join the fed government for 2-3 years to pad your resume/CV, go back to University of Chicago earning his previous $465k.

Rats leaving the sinking ship not found.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...is-returning-to-university-of-chicago-1-.html

Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director is now the vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup.
How much do you think he earns?

 

[hal2kilo]

What idiot would want to be working with fed government permanently for a $191k salary when he can earn $465+k teaching at the University of Chicago?

Sounds to me like he did the right thing. I would have done the same thing.
Go on temporary leave at University of Chicago, join the fed government for 2-3 years to pad your resume/CV, go back to University of Chicago earning his previous $465k.

Rats leaving the sinking ship not found.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...is-returning-to-university-of-chicago-1-.html

Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director is now the vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup.
How much do you think he earns?

Yep, seems the OP missed that little didbit in the referenced article. But when you're on a mission, steam ahead.

 

[Fear No Evil]

What idiot would want to be working with fed government permanently for a $191k salary when he can earn $465+k teaching at the University of Chicago?

Sounds to me like he did the right thing. I would have done the same thing.
Go on temporary leave at University of Chicago, join the fed government for 2-3 years to pad your resume/CV, go back to University of Chicago earning his previous $465k.

Rats leaving the sinking ship not found.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...is-returning-to-university-of-chicago-1-.html

Peter Orszag, former Obama budget director is now the vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup.
How much do you think he earns?

Former Obama people getting picked up by companies Obama bailed out? Chicago politics baby! The rest of the world calls that a bribe or a payoff.

 

[Vette73]

Former Obama people getting picked up by companies Obama bailed out? Chicago politics baby! The rest of the world calls that a bribe or a payoff.

pesky facts... Citigroup started getting its money under Republican Bush. Yep pesky facts.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/the-citigroup-b.html
Apparently Citibank and the U.S. government (i.e., we taxpayers) have reached a deal whereby we will backstop something like $300-billion in screwed assets on Citi's balance sheet.

That was in 2008

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Time for everybody to vote third party in 2012.

 

[Vette73]

Time for everybody to vote third party in 2012.

I vote 3rd party many times but will rarly have any pickup in large scale.

To many people treat R/D as THEIR team so they have to vote that way and/or the 3rd party person would be throwing my vote away and the other team might win.

 

[Modelworks]

If only Gheitner would jump ship.

 

[Fear No Evil]

pesky facts... Citigroup started getting its money under Republican Bush. Yep pesky facts.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/the-citigroup-b.html
Apparently Citibank and the U.S. government (i.e., we taxpayers) have reached a deal whereby we will backstop something like $300-billion in screwed assets on Citi's balance sheet.

That was in 2008

November 2008? Obama was already elected with a massive Democrat victory in the house and senate.. Yeah I am sure Citi thinks keeping Bush and the Republicans happy was the important thing to do...

 

[lothar]

Former Obama people getting picked up by companies Obama bailed out? Chicago politics baby! The rest of the world calls that a bribe or a payoff.

When Robert Rubin did this in the Clinton years, did you call it Chicago politics?
Where were you when a lot of Bush advisers were jumping to banks and lobbying firms? Did you call it Chicago politics?

It's no surprise that having a top government job(especially the ones that deal with finance, economics, or enforcement) opens many crevices to major banks, corporations, and lobbying firms.
This is nothing new.

 

[Vette73]

November 2008? Obama was already elected with a massive Democrat victory in the house and senate.. Yeah I am sure Citi thinks keeping Bush and the Republicans happy was the important thing to do...

Bush was still president and it was his call and he pushed hard to bail Citi and other banks out.

Obama did not become prez until 2009.

Again... pesky facts.

 

[Darwin333]

If only Gheitner would jump ship.

in the middle of the pacific, Hank Paulson can join him.

 

[CPA]

To be fair, Austan Goolsbee is a moron anyway and was a holdover from Obama's Illinois politics. His hiring was a political favor. This is probably not a bad move for Obama.

 

[dainthomas]

Obama has been in office for 2+ years now and things aren't showing signs of improving IMO. Are you guys going to still be blaming Bush 5 years from now if Obama was re-elected and is about to end his second term?

How bad were things after two years of Reagan? Was that his fault too? Were you alive then?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How bad were things after two years of Reagan? Was that his fault too? Were you alive then?

Yes, I was alive then as a matter-of-fact.

 

[nageov3t]

it seemed a little eyebrow raising that they buried this news while everyone was distracted by the Weiner scandal and his reasoning seemed bogus (really? the University of Chicago wouldn't give you another year of leave to work for the President of the United States? sure...) but I'm not putting my tinfoil hat on just yet.

 

[zsdersw]

It remains a fact that mentioning Bush by referencing the condition of the economy at the time Obama took office is not the same as "blaming Bush"... which is precisely the reaction from some people whenever they see his name in a thread.

Honestly, it's almost as if anytime someone types "Bush" these people get a pop-up on their computer that says "Someone typed 'Bush'. Click OK to send standard 'Bu-bu-Bush!' rhetort".. and they click OK every time.

 

[Vette73]

it seemed a little eyebrow raising that they buried this news while everyone was distracted by the Weiner scandal and his reasoning seemed bogus (really? the University of Chicago wouldn't give you another year of leave to work for the President of the United States? sure...) but I'm not putting my tinfoil hat on just yet.

He'll probable make as much or more money, work less hours, and already worked long enough to bolster his resume. Seems like a win win to me.

 

[nageov3t]

He'll probable make as much or more money, work less hours, and already worked long enough to bolster his resume. Seems like a win win to me.

why not just say that, though?

I forget who it was, but didn't one of the press secretaries resign and say "lol, I have kids I need to put through college" as his reason?

 

[Lemon law]

Lets see if I can quite get my arms around this, Goolsbee is a Keynesian economics advocate, whose policies sharply differed with what the GOP believes in. Obama somewhat tells Goolsbee he would like to have his policies but the GOP makes it a non-starter political reality, as Obama has to use more conservative and less effective economic policy
options. After 2 years of semi-disgust Goolsbee realizes he can't steer policy, and returns to teaching. And will likely will win new converts, who will help spread the message that GOP economic beliefs stink. And worse yet for the GOP, they will be able to prove it.

But somehow this a GOP victory?????????????????????

If we still had GOP economic advisers, the economy would be in far worse shape.

 

[woolfe9999]

Rich, coming from you....



Lefties seem to want to forget that as bad as Bush was (and he was terrible), they couldn't manage to put up a semi-decent candidate in 2004 to beat him when he was ripe for the picking.



When does it become Obama's fault? Whenever things go badly around here, all we hear is "Bu...Bu...Buuuuuush!" Make no mistake -- Bush royally screwed up. Obama has been in office for 2+ years now and things aren't showing signs of improving IMO. Are you guys going to still be blaming Bush 5 years from now if Obama was re-elected and is about to end his second term?

Sort of irrelevant what role Bush played in creating this economic catastrophe because one thing is provably certain: Obama did not create it. I personally don't think Bush had much responsibility for that collapse, but it did happen before Obama was in office. So only one question remains: given the magnitude of the collapse, was it reasonable to expect better than what we have right now? And the corallary to that: how much worse could it be?

Those are open questions, and complicated ones. Trying to form some "rule" about how much time must go by before a given POTUS "owns" a problem is a simplistic approach to the issue, and one completely out of touch with reality. Depending on the circumstances, Obama could have truly owned this problem as early as 90 days into his Presidency (had it been an easily and quickly fixable problem that he failed to fix) or conversely, he may not own it 5 years down the line, if we were on an irrevecable trajectory toward disaster when he took office. I suspect the reality is somwhere in between but reality tends to be lost in these kinds of discussions. Whether it's about blaming Bush for some people on the left, or about making Obama "own" the problem at some arbitrary point in time as with some people who are right and center, it's all just so much meaningless noise.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Sort of irrelevant what role Bush played in creating this economic catastrophe because one thing is provably certain: Obama did not create it. I personally don't think Bush had much responsibility for that collapse, but it did happen before Obama was in office. So only one question remains: given the magnitude of the collapse, was it reasonable to expect better than what we have right now? And the corallary to that: how much worse could it be?

Those are open questions, and complicated ones. Trying to form some "rule" about how much time must go by before a given POTUS "owns" a problem is a simplistic approach to the issue, and one completely out of touch with reality. Depending on the circumstances, Obama could have truly owned this problem as early as 90 days into his Presidency (had it been an easily and quickly fixable problem that he failed to fix) or conversely, he may not own it 5 years down the line, if we were on an irrevecable trajectory toward disaster when he took office. I suspect the reality is somwhere in between but reality tends to be lost in these kinds of discussions. Whether it's about blaming Bush for some people on the left, or about making Obama "own" the problem at some arbitrary point in time as with some people who are right and center, it's all this meaningless noise.

Oh, I agree with you. And frankly, I don't care who started it or who is to blame; I just want it fixed and both parties need to work towards that goal.

 

[Lemon law]

As Woolfe fails to learn anything from history. As he states, "So only one question remains: given the magnitude of the collapse, was it reasonable to expect better than what we have right now? And the corallary to that: how much worse could it be?"

The only somewhat direct analogy occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930's, where the economy spent a decade in the toilet. Yet FDR and a democratic congress kept being re-elected because the voting public blamed the GOP and Hoover for getting us into the mess. Due to Hoover advocacy of the GOP policy of today, we went from 10% unemployment all the way up to 25%. And if ole weeping John and the GOP house succeeds in collapsing the US economy before 11/2012, we could well see a repeat of history complete with 25% unemployment.

Hope that answers your questions Woolfe.

 

[Craig234]

And frankly, I don't care who started it or who is to blame;

There's part of your problem right there - don't hold people accountable and prevent them from getting to repeat harm.

'OK, it's right after Enron was run into the ground. I don't care who was responsible; I insist we not blame anyone. Whether we keep Ken Lay in place or not, just fix it.'

I just want it fixed and both parties need to work towards that goal.

Except you can be pretty much guaranteed they won't.

Republicans have made it clear they'll do massive harm if they think it helps them keep power and their agenda.

Shut the government down? Check.

Suppress votes, send staffers anonymously to be a mob preventing the recount in a presidential election? Check.

Disenfranchise large numbers of voters, disqualify large numbers of voter registrations on things like the thickness of the paper the registration form is printed on? Check.

Hold the debt ceiling allowing us to pay our bills and protect the national credit hostage? Check.

Trash the functioning of democracy in Congress with things like abusing the filibuster like never before to simply prevent the election winners from governing? Check.

Hold every presidential appointment hostage? Check.

Try to use the budget process to kill agencies passed into law they failed to defeat? Check.

Screw workers every which way to Sunday with things like attacking unions, to try to monopolize money in elections and shift wealth to the top? Check.

Destroy Medicare and Social Security, replacing them with far worse privatized versions? Check.

Shift wealth to the top with massive tax cuts that are all borrowed money added to the national debt and weighted to redistribute wealth to the rich? Check.

Vote to let the financial crisis destroy a major US industry, which will hurt unions and help foreign competitors with factories in red states? Check.

There's much more, but Republicans are hardly going to 'put the nation first', when the dominant factor by far whether they win in 2012 is if the economy is doing badly.

But are YOU going to hold them accountable when they don't put the country first?