post election bi-partisan talk

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by squeeks, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    Its one thing to talk bipartisanism during the campaign, that’s all expected, but its been very encouraging the past few days post elation to hear all Obama's people talking about reaching out to the other side.

    Lets hope the transition is smooth and Obama's people can work to get to economy turned around, im sure a lot of you have noticed the DJI has dropped almost 1000 points since he was elected...

    Thoughts?
     
  2. abijnk macrumors 68040

    abijnk

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #2
    Its really early in the game, but the speculation (HuffPo has a really good breakdown on one of their BigNews pages) is including both repubs and dems. Obama has talked a big game so far, and, at least in campaigning, he has tried to walk the walk (think Hagel). I hope he keeps an open mind and doesn't break the country's trust with his selections.

    A lot of people were upset about Rahm Emanuel's appointment because he is a rather hyper-partisan democrat (all other issues aside, that is for the other thread), but then I think to myself, bi-partisan doesn't mean a democratic president has only republican advisers, so what's the big deal???
     
  3. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #3
    The DJI went up on Tuesday in anticipation of the election. It has since receded over fears that the economy still sucks. He can't do anything about that until the 20th of Jan.
     
  4. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #4
    The Dow Jones reacts to many things. I suspect the crap state of the global economy has more to do with it. Important indicators left, right and centre are grim on all sides and nothing the current President can do or say gives much hope to people.

    You know, for all the wooly talk of bi-partisanship, don't go getting your hopes up... this is standard practice for all incoming administrations, to calm fears. And very few Republicans practiced what they now are preaching.

    This administration has laid a steaming turd in the hat before passing it to the next president. Obama has received more votes than any presidential candidate in history; the Dems have a clear mandate in Congress and the White House to move forward with their agenda to do what they see as best for the American people.
     
  5. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #5
    Bi-partisanship is dependent on the republicans being receptive to his overtures. In other words, it's a two way street.

    The drop in the Dow has little or nothing to do with Obama. If you'll have noticed, we have the worst unemployment in decades, banks still aren't lending and retail sales have plummeted. None of those issues can be blamed on Obama.
     
  6. squeeks thread starter macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    i guess only haveing 2 presidents over the past 16 years (damn has it really been 16 years since clinton was elected?!?) you kinda forget what goes on during transistion
     
  7. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    The stock market always takes a loss when a president is elected, Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter. It's probably just a reaction to the uncertainty that a new leader causes in many people's eyes. Nobody knows how the economy will turn out under Obama, it may take a huge turn up, or he may implement some changes that turn out to hurt the economy. Only time will tell that, and there will be a lot of people who are unwilling to find out, and will sell off what they have to avoid further devaluation should that happen.

    As long as Obama doesn't do anything stupid right off the bat, I think it'll come back up as time goes on.

    And yes, I think it's encouraging to hear all the talk about bipartisanship. If it comes to fruition, it will force me to re-evaluate my feelings about politics and the two parties which run our nation. I voted third party mainly because I couldn't stand either McCain or Obama, but also largely because I can't stand the infighting in congress between the Republicans and the Democrats. It seems to me that a lot of good ideas are wasted on our congress, simply because there's this knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by someone from the other side.

    SLC
     
  8. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #8
    Well, the highest unemployment rate in 14 years, high-profile big layoffs on the horizon, big GM losses, and evidence that the bailout bill isn't doing anything yet (compare the 3-mo treasury rate a month ago at .51, which was incredibly low, and now at .25) might have just a teensy bit to do with the stock market.

    I'm all for bipartisanship if it doesn't mean we have to include economic policy that's been proven to fail, just to please the minority party, along with policies that historically have worked.
     
  9. squeeks thread starter macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    i believe on the news this morning they said highest since 2005...but yeah
     
  10. gotzero macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US
    #10
    Something I think we can all agree on. :)
     
  11. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #11
    No one of any party is going to turn things around super-fast.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jobless-rate-bolts-to-14year-apf-13501236.html

     
  12. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #12
    So Pelosi wants to continue with the bailout plans? So much for fresh thinking ideas. How about bail out the voters not the companies. Bottom up will help a lot more people than top down.
     
  13. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13
    They have to. I'm not sure you realise what would have happened if they didn't.
     
  14. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #14
    But rather than give the money to the corrupt executives why not give it to the consumer who can spend it and feed it back into the economy. Give the money to the people to pay of the loans and mortgages. I will never see that 700 billion but I will be paying for it.

    The more money they throw at the problem the longer it will take to fix it. Just let all the dead weight fall off and rebuild from the ground up. Don't keep adding more dead weight.
     
  15. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #15
    Let's say we do that. The retail portion of the economy will do well. Perhaps people pay off some of their debt. The huge financial conglomerates (and that's what they are) are still in trouble. The market continues to fall. People's pensions/401Ks/IRAs are all worth less. Some go out of business. Hundreds of thousands more unemployed. Doesn't look too nice, huh?
     
  16. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #16
    I don't see anything getting any better do you. They want to add another 100 billion on top of 700 they already threw at it. Where is that money going. How bout we take all the money the CEO's stoled and redistribute it.

    Throwing money at the system is not going to fix it. It will just stall the in-evadible.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Redistributing the money will do nothing in the long run. It would only amount to $2,000 for every person in the US, far short of what most need to solve their problems. We'd all have a nice xmas, then what?

    We just can't allow the infrastructure of our economy to fail. It's popular to say we shouldn't be enriching CEOs but that's not what this is doing.

    Credit needs to be freed up; it's still too tight. Was shopping for a new car and my sales rep (who I've bought 5 cars from) was telling me that people with 700 credit scores can't get car loans.

    One of the new townhouses in my development was sold and the couple had a mortgage. Mortgage company came back to them after approval and told them 18% down wasn't going to cut it and they wanted 25%. They couldn't come up with the extra down payment. Deal off.

    These people can afford new cars and houses but can't get the credit necessary. This is happening all over the country. Businesses can't get the credit they need to run their businesses.

    This is a problem that needs to be tackled from the top down.
     
  18. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    But the more money we throw at it means higher inflation, and isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place. We will have to pay this 700 billion off some how.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Quoted for truth.

    For the last 8 years, bi-partisanship has been defined as Democrats giving the GOP whatever the GOP demanded, and then being attacked for going along anyway.

    If the GOP continues in that model of bi-partisanship, then nothing will change no matter how many offers Obama makes. And if the offers from an Obama administration are continually rebuffed, he'll have no incentive to keep making them, and indeed will be incentivized to govern more in the "scorched earth" model Bush pursued.

    It seems to me that the GOP is going to have to make a decision about how to proceed here. While Clinton was president, their overarching goal was to stonewall anything that could be seen as giving Clinton a victory. Denying him as many accomplishments as possible was the name of the game, and they played it well. If they choose to continue that strategy, particularly if Obama remains popular, they will likely lose even more seats in Congress, and become even less relevant in 2010.

    If they decide to allow Obama some gains in exchange for victories of their own -- even if they are shared victories sometimes -- they stand a far greater chance of returning from the political wilderness sooner rather than later.
     
  20. jplan2008 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2008
    #20
    The $100 billion (+) is totally different -- to attack the overall economic crisis. This is done by spending, and, yes, putting money in the hands of individuals who will spend it.

    Pelosi et. al voted for the bailout because they were convinced it was necessary, even though it made them "ill," to quote Sarah Palin. I'm not sure why you think they would then change their minds.

    The $700 billion was just to deal with the financial crisis. Paulson worked out $150 billion of that to certain banks (equity interest), and are dealing with other banks for another $100 billion. Other amounts will go in chunks of funding. A lot of time was and is still being lost because Sec. Paulson didn't and doesn't want to admit that the best thing to do is buy an equity share in banks. Best for taxpayers in the long-term and best for the financial crisis in the short-term. He decided to do that with $250 billion, but his ability to do it was only because Pelosi and Schumer fought to include that in the bill. Paulson didn't include that tactic in his bill, and didn't even want it in the bill that passed, only because of the idealogical problem with ownership of banks, although somehow it was o.k. to buy securities for much more than they're worth.

    The money comes from U.S. Treasuries to the banks. Some of it is just to bolster the banks' books to encourage investment and lending by the banks -- it's not necessarily cash out of the US Treasury, like I think people think of. A 2-year Treasury bond pays 2.5%, but we're supposed to receive a 5% yearly return on the cash to banks. This is a much less risky approach than Paulson's original proposal, and we're much less likely to lose money on the deal.

    Other countries have used that approach almost exclusively, and I think we should, too.
     

Share This Page