Obama says there is no time to lose as he unveils economic team

You wonder if it wouldn't be better if the inauguration were pushed up to December 1. A lame duck is just no good in a time of crisis.

Shows Obama is "Man Of Action", do it right away not in 18-months as predicted by APEC members ! Also, $700bn from Obama will have far greater impact (psycological, confidence buidling) than $700bn coming from Bush admn.

I can't believe Obama is still saying he's going to cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. I STILL haven't got an answer from the Obama people on how he's going to do that.

the best minds in America...

My God, who's kidding who?

Well, my guess is that part of the money is going to come from savings made from bringing the troops home from Iraq and putting a stop to the search for WMDs, which has gone on for nearly eight fruitless years. Also, closing Guantanomo Bay will save a little bit of cash. Perhaps Mr. Obama will narrow the gap between the rich and poor, which, compared to Japan, is obscene. I must admit it's going to be hard to repair the damage of the most incompetent, disliked Presidents in history.

There you guy, sarge... buttamimi just did a pretty decent job of answering your question for you. The REAL question is how long it's going to take Obama to clean up after all bush's disasters, in particular the current economic situation.

Buttamimi

That is a wonderful answer, but what about the fact the troops are not coming home they are moving to another area. Using sound bites to make a point doesnt make your point valid.. I think someone has to answer the actual question of where is this money going to come from, now more then ever since he isnt going to raise the taxes on the "rich".

I dont think Obama has to clean up anything Bush made by himself, but more over he will have to change the mess his congress and Bush made.. It wasnt a single man who made all our problems and it will take more then one man to correct it..

But you can be like Smith and Buttamimi and blame everything on one person because its easier then living the truth.

Sarge,

This is a crisis of epic proportions. At one time Obama had plans to raise taxes on the wealthy. Those making over $250k were the target, which by the way voted for Obama more than Bush. Those plans are being reevaluated. We paid for an unwarranted war with deficit spending and we will pay for the many extra expenditures needed to revamp our economy through deficit spending. You are in denial so it serves very little purpose to answer your questions. This question among others have been answered fully; you just don't like the answers. The previous answer given months ago was valid that Obama would give tax cuts to those under $200k, not raise taxes on $200k -$250k and that he would balance those cuts by raising taxes on those above $250k. Unprecedented financial catastrophes have occurred in the very short time since then and Obama will remain flexible.

Sarge, you just go from one state of denial to another. I remember when you vigorously denied that he would give any tax cuts. He is going to do that. You were wrong. You lack credibility. How did Bush pay for his tax cuts? By increasing the budget deficit. That was before our economy was a mess. Now it is more important because both conservative and liberal economists agree that we need major stimuli and quick.

Afghanistan needs a few divisions, but leaving Iraq cuts over a dozen. Not to mention the massive amount of money we're pouring into Iraq regardless of troop levels.

In any case, things aren't going to be easy whoever tries to tackle this issue. The people they appoint better be competent but time will tell.

the actual question of where is this money going to come from, now more then ever since he isnt going to raise the taxes on the "rich".

The same place it came from as GWB blew through five trillion more than Uncle Sam collected in tax revenues; the Obama administration is gonna sell treasury bonds. And foreign governments will buy 'em, particularly the Chinese, since their economies are dependent on the health of ours.

But over the long-run this arrangement will need to be changed. The American consumer, all too often buying on credit, cannot be relied upon to keep the global economy afloat. This was what our "great economy" was based on. The Chinese will have to consume more of what they produce and Americans will have to learn to save to make purchases. And, of course, we will have to balance the federal budget so we aren't reliant on foreign central banks to make up the difference.

Donkey: "At one time Obama had plans to raise taxes on the wealthy"

He still does, but not only on the wealthy, on anyone or any business making over $200,000 ( or is it $150,000, like Biden said? ).

We need a smaller teapot to contain this tempest.

Why don't we wait and see what Obama actually does and see how that works? That's what we did as GWB redistributed taxes to generations of taxpayers who have yet proven themselves to be able to pay them and as he led us into the worst financial conditions since the Great Depression.

Even if Obama were a "socialist" ideologue, we ought to give him a little breathing room considering the abysmal failure of the current "free market" ideology.

Sarge,

Is balancing the budget important to you? I really don't think is it to anyone who yawned as the debt piled up under GWB's leadership. He wouldn't raise taxes to balance the books because that would harm our "great economy." Didn't turn out to be so great, huh?

The American people also deserve some blame. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to take out a five-year loan for a gas guzzler. Or sign for a sub-prime mortgage. Yet I do hold the administration accountable for telling people to "go shopping" as a patriotic duty to keep the economy afloat while turning a blind eye to the amount of debt which was being run up. Many were living beyond their means and nobody wanted to acknowledge that.

I don't know where good-paying jobs are going to come from given that manufacturing went off-shore some time ago. Yet I believe that future economic growth lies in the realm of alternative energy innovation. The chances of success are far greater under this incoming administration than one which would have pursued an energy policy of "drill, baby, drill." Weaning mankind off of fossil fuels is worth more than any tax cut.

Sez,

That's what we did as GWB redistributed taxes to generations of taxpayers who have yet proven themselves to be able to pay them and as he led us into the worst financial conditions since the Great Depression.

Let's not forget that the both Democrats and Republicans both went along for the ride. Not much real opposition his first 6 years from the Dem's when they were the minority and not much after they became the majority party again. Plenty of blame all around as to how we got into this mess.

Now for the present.......To the shock of most everyone who thinks I'm some sort of neocon hack, President Elect Obama has done good so far. He has demonstrated flexibilty and reality in listening to divergent views and I give him FULL credit.

A good start, a very good start with his economic team. I'm also glad to see the Republican leadership get back to being what they should have been all along until they got drunk with power under Bush.

Being fiscally responsible again when they oppose increased Government spending and focus on getting our house in order first. The party of the 90's not the one it was under Bush.

And from the article it seems Obama is going to do just that first. The market has rallied the past two days on his choices and plan. That is the real vote that counts and I'm with them.

A good start for our new President a very good start.

Not much real opposition his first 6 years from the Dem's when they were the minority and not much after they became the majority party again.

Not true. There was tremendous opposition to GWB's first tax cut. But times were good and it was easy to convince the American people it was affordable, particularly since the government was taking in more than it was spending. John McCain was one of only two Republican Senators to vote against that tax cut because it was too skewed "toward the rich."

Fast forward to 2008 when, in the waning days of the campaign, neither McCain nor his running mate Sarah Palin could get through a stump speech without underscoring the plight of poor Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher whose entrepreneurial dreams will be dashed under Obama’s tax plan.

Yet the wealthy folk I know were unmoved by this (and not because JTP really wasn't in a position to buy a business). Rather they felt he was not the source of innovation which would drive economic growth in the future. Innovation, however, might reduce his costs.

It was the Democrats who understood the value and the role of science in promoting human welfare. Taxes were much less important to the wealthy than the prospect of restoring a dynamic, innovation-driven economy (where the United States is #1).

Fast forward to 2008 when, in the waning days of the campaign, neither McCain nor his running mate Sarah Palin could get through a stump speech without underscoring the plight of poor Joe “the Plumber” Wurzelbacher whose entrepreneurial dreams will be dashed under Obama’s tax plan.

Relevance to the article or just more partisan clap trap?

It was the Democrats who understood the value and the role of science in promoting human welfare.

Yup.....Microsoft did sooooo bad under the Republicans.

Partisanship, glad to see Obama not stooping to it in trying to deal with this mess.

'Recovery will not come overnight.' How true. It took eight years to mess up the economy and it will take at least a couple of years to get it back to anywhere near normal. It will be a huge task. But, Obama is the man. What a refreshing change to see someone of intelligence leading the nation. Also a bonus is his Harvard educated wife. Wow! What a magnificent change.

"Obama is the man"

Or The One.

Nov 4, Obama said the U.S. economy was trapped in a “vicious cycle"

and really wants to look like he is doing something, so after market corrects itself, he can take credit for it....

Obama can put the pieces of the big picture together in a way GWB never could. It's ridiculous to go deeply into debt fighting the same people we are handing over our hard earned money to to buy oil. Then the bottom fell out of an economy driven by the paper worth of the financial services industry and inflated real estate values. Or, as someone humorously put it:

We mugged Mr. Market in an alley, with the cost of wars of choice. And then ran over him with our Hummer, with our energy non-policy. And left him on food stamps in a large cardboard box over a heating grate, with our innovative securitization of mortgage risk.

after market corrects itself

This is how you describe a second bail-out for Citigroup??? Tomorrow it is expected that Treasury Secy Paulson will announce a new plan to bolster the consumer-finance market.

Looks a lot more like the visible hand of Uncle Sam than the invisible hand of Mr. Market.

sailwind,

Democrats did go along for the ride.

However, they were the minority party for the first 6 years. They provided much more resistance to Bush's taxation proposals than the Republicans did. They were most vocal in objecting to the endless unpaid financial commitment to adventurous war and they were most vocal in terms of the widening income gaps in the US. Additionally, they were the most likely to be branded as unpatriotic in the event of resistance to Republican programs.

Congress enabled the debt, to be sure and it did not provide enough proactive oversight. Nonetheless, I think this is a bit of sophistry on your part. My point was about the leadership--Bush versus Obama.

Way to go Obama. Gonna have a new trailer and flat screen TV next year thanks to you. The greedy rich old guys is gonna pay for it too.

Theuy had all the money for too long, like , kinda that's bad dude!

Now it is time for us normal guys to live with some style. Bye bye Bush and McCain who only like rich people and wars.

What a refreshing change to see someone of intelligence leading the nation. Also a bonus is his Harvard educated wife.

Judging from the fact Bush is a Harvard Graduate also I have to say having a Degree from there isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.

'betzee' has written

"Then the bottom fell out of an economy driven by the paper worth of the financial services industry and inflated real estate values. Or, as someone humorously put it:

"We mugged Mr. Market in an alley, with the cost of wars of choice. And then ran over him with our Hummer, with our energy non-policy. And left him on food stamps in a large cardboard box over a heating grate, with our innovative securitization of mortgage risk."

Looks like "someone" is a NY Times reader -

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/24/opinion/ 24kristol.html?s=1&pg=4

Judging from the fact Bush is a Harvard Graduate also I have to say having a Degree from there isn't exactly what it's cracked up to be.

Yes, he got a piece of paper from Harvard. Here is what one of his professors has to say:

"At first, I wondered, 'Who is this George Bush?' It's a very common name and I didn't know his background. And he was such a bad student that I asked him once how he got in. He said, 'My dad has good friends.'" Bush scored in the lowest 10 percent of the class.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/16/tsurumi/index1.html

I suspect the professors at Harvard either don't remember Mrs. Obama so well (and that is good) or remember her for better reasons.

The American people also deserve some blame. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to take out a five-year loan for a gas guzzler. Or sign for a sub-prime mortgage. Yet I do hold the administration accountable for telling people to "go shopping" as a patriotic duty to keep the economy afloat while turning a blind eye to the amount of debt which was being run up. Many were living beyond their means and nobody wanted to acknowledge that.

True, I worked at a Wal-mart and you find the dumbest people there. They complain about gas prices and lug themselves with 2 basket of food and 2 fat kids into a hummer. I also don't understand, in Oklahoma at least, They buy those 2 baskets of food, but they go out to eat almost every day. Really, If you drive down 71st street,for like 10 miles its just places to eat left and right....I'M NOT EXAGGERATING!

And yes, the media just bombards the people with stuff they should buy. Should people be shopping for I pods while there are kids dieing of starvation in...every bloody part of the globe. I don't get the economy in that seance. Is that the only way to stimulate the economy is by making Americans spend money on crap they don't need/can't afford?

Rebuilding the U.S. economy to the strength it once had after 8 years of Bush may well be impossible.

Incredibly, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson last week criticized Asian consumers for not buying enough US products as one of the reasons for the quagmire the U.S. finds itself in.

Just how arrogant can a person get?

Sushi, are you sure he has not been taken out of context? I find it more likely he was citing a reason than leveling a criticism. If sales of U.S. products in Asia have flagged, then saying so is just a fact.

Rebuilding the U.S. economy after four years of Obama will be difficult, but have no illusions - it WILL happen!

Sushi, agree with you about Paulson - he's a real piece of work.

Sushi, I hear they're going to make a new bill with Paulson's picture on it. It's going to be the Gadzillion Dollar bill! Hee hee!

hereandthere said:

Nov 4, Obama said the U.S. economy was trapped in a “vicious cycle"

and really wants to look like he is doing something, so after market corrects itself, he can take credit for it....

In 1929 the market corrected itself. That is exactly what happened. People were acting like idiots by taking out loans and buying stock on a low margin, which was possible in those days. It was a ponzi scheme. The market has no conscious. What you call correcting itself would have been disastrous. If we let institution we have bailed out so far fail, our economy would be close to a depression in a very short time from now. That is what correcting itself means. We have made ridiculously bad decisions in this country lately in the financial markets.

As Betzee as repeatedly pointed out our addiction to debt has gone far beyond any reasonable level and in fact into the absurd. Destruction of the markets is part of correcting itself. The markets are based on fear and greed. We were headed for all out panic. These people who believe the market is magic and would know when to stop itself from falling too low or collapsing when panic is destroying every structure are not seeing the market for what it is.

The markets are simply the gauge, a measuring device, of panic at one end and exuberant confidence at the other. If what I am saying is not true than price to earnings ratios (P/E) would all be very close. The return on equity (ROE) would also be very close. There are functions of the market that would appear be the source of a "magic hand." When a stock splits two for one the opening bid inevitably will be within a fraction of a percent of exactly half the previous stock price (barring any other good news/bad news). The price of a stock compared to the overall worth of a corporation is not consistently reflected when comparing stocks one to another.

I do believe in the concepts of market correction. But believe me in 1929 there was a market correction.

Bush has made smart moves to stabilize our economy and restore confidence. Obama will aggressively pursue a set revitalization programs and policies to rebuild our financial structures, restore confidence and create jobs in America. Both should be credited each according to their efforts when the world economy is back on track.

President-elect Obama is a very, very lucky person. The US economy started to tank even before he was elected, and the estimation of the scale of the economic problems will be much more clearer before he is inaugurated 1/20/09. This would mean that historically, he will be seen as coming into office to fix the problem w/ almost no connection to the development of the problem. Also, he will be given slack w/ his drive into the Indian Ocean since it would be a legacy job from the present Administration. Things only have to improve for him to be re-elected. Very, very lucky politically.

apecNetworks - agreed.

Had the economy imploded after Jan 20th, Americans' perceptions of who is to blame would be different.

As it stands, most of the blame is being laid at the feet of the captain of the U.S. Titanic, George. W. Bush.

apec - But Obama does have a connection to the development of the problem. He has on his staff people who were neck deep in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Plus, his party, the Democratic Party, put pressure on these housing loan companies to extend loans to unqualified buyers because it's the "right of every citizen to own a home" blah blah blah...

No connection to the problem? Someone's off their meds...

I'm talking about the individual, not the Democratic Party - he needs the Party to get elected. I have known lucky people, the kind of people who by chance are in the right place at the right time. Example would be going on a sales trip w/ zero chance of making the sale, but the person sitting next to him on the plane is the CEO's son/daughter who happens to like the company's products. Lucky people fascinates me - btw former Pres. Reagan was a lucky guy.

Stimulating the economy require huge amount of bail out & infrastructure budget. It is fair enough however Obama did not mention where does the money come from? Since the Bear Sterns collapsed, current govenment has already spent more than a trillion dollars from security bonds. In my knowledge, there is not much left in the treasury. Besides that there are no reserve & surplus revenue too. US has both trade & budget deficits.

Selling out the more treasury bonds or printing out more dollars are only options. Raising tax is unimagineable. It is unreasonable for expecting the foreign countries to supply the unlimited finance. They are facing their economic downturn too. Printing more dollar notes will sky rocket the inflation.

It is a tremendous task for new admininstration for recovering the economy. What ever happen in tomorrow, Obama is the dim light from end of the dark tunnel.

SedanDelivery.

(I almost wrote "sedanchair" as your handle!) Yes, and the comment was written in response to a column by William Kristol, resident NYT's neocon, praising the caliber of Obama's team while questioning whether "more government spending" is the answer. Predictably, neither he nor any other balking conservative has proposed an alternative. Perhaps they don't want to acknowledge there isn't one as the ailing financial sector looks like it needs another infusion of funds to flush out all the bad loans.

Of course taking on all this debt is worrying, particularly after what we've incurred over the past eight years. But it beats waiting for the market to correct itself. In the absence of action that will happen, but the correction will entail destroying what remains of our economy. Neither we, nor others, want that.

After we get through this I hope the Obama team will look hard at where the economy should go and where growth should come from rather than just leaving it to "the market" that morphed into a form of "cannabalizng capitalism." It's long overdue frankly; there's been very little discussion over the past few decades about out-sourcing of jobs and our heavy reliance on imported consumer goods which resulted in a ballooning current account deficit.

Is that the only way to stimulate the economy is by making Americans spend money on crap they don't need/can't afford?

Too many Americans live paycheck to paycheck in order to purchase an HDTV or whatever new gadget has just hit the shelves. (I hate going to the mall for just that reason; it's discouraging to see this in action at cash register after cash register.) Other countries are now going to have to get their citizens to pick up the slack and keep the global economy afloat. In places where saving is still a priority this may be a hard sell.

Glenn Greenwald at salon.com has voiced some concerns, which he picked up from the Op-Ed pages of papers like the NYT's on the uncritical enthusiasm, relief really at the prospect of adults being back in charge, which Obama's line up has elicited:

Trillions of dollars flying around. Deals being cut in the dark, with virtually no oversight, scrutiny or even public awareness until after the fact. All sorts of overlapping relationships and influence-peddling at the heart of these transactions. And people like Rubin, Geithner, and Summers have all long been a part of that system, and in many cases, important components of the key precipitating events. That is some rather substantial ground for concern.

This is all true but also predictable. Anyone with a long resume and experience has been on the wrong side of a few issues and not taken advice, in retrospect, they should have. Their hands are a lot cleaner than those of Phil Gramm, who has come out to say the deregulation of the derivative market legislation he sponsored (and Summers backed) has nothing to do with this mess. Yeah right.

The alternative is to go with someone outside the system. Some members of the Left, disheartened by the reappearance of so many clintonistas, have been complaining Obama hasn't appointed enough fresh faces to promote his progressive agenda. An outsider with an anti-Wall Street bias is most unlikely to appreciate how intricate financial markets work and would, moreover, probably make it a lot worse. Ditto for the bail-out critics on the Right who don't want more government involvement, seeing that as the source of the problem. Just let Wall Street go under seems to be their view (if I'm reading Sarge's posts correctly). That would also be an economic catastrophe. Sooo, on balance, I'm happy with Obama's team.

Yup.....Microsoft did sooooo bad under the Republicans.

Of course with products with so low quality that his corporate image tainted the image of U.S. products.

I give credit Obama to being smart in choosing people for his economic team, let's see how they will cope up to the challenge