U.S. President Barack Obama smiles after making remarks on regulatory reform in the East Room at the White House in Washington October 9, 2009. Earlier in the day, Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES POLITICS)
Apparently, SNL’s skit was premature. Maybe President Obama hasn’t actually accomplished the following:
1. Closing Gitmo (same as Bush)
2 Outlawing torture by revoking Bush’s EO that said much the same thing
3. Withdrawal from Iraq (thanks to Bush)
4. De-escalation of war in Afghanistan (campaigned that it was the necessary war and now dithers as more American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan this year, than in the previous 7 years)
5. peace between Israel and Palestine
6. Olympics in Chicago
7. Supporting democratic movement in Iran
8. Supporting democracy in Honduras
9. nuclear disarmament
But, hey, so what?! At least he’s now won the Nobel Peace Prize for non-accomplishment; and delivered a presidential promise to use this award as a rallying “call to action”. It’s the thought and rhetoric that counts, right? Basically, he’s being awarded for what he may accomplish in the future (Even supporters are questioning, “Why?”). If his pretty words actually inspires us to achieve peace, enhances international relations, then some day in the future, maybe the award will have been earned. Here’s a novel idea: Why not award the prize to him THEN?!
I’m not trying to be funny, here; I wouldn’t want to be accused of siding with the terrorists.
But seriously, folks…
WASHINGTON/OSLO (Reuters) – Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement and drew both praise and skepticism around the world.
The bestowal of one of the world’s top accolades on a president less than nine months in office, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.
Awww….they love him not for the leader he is, but for the leader he wants to be; for saying what they want to hear.
Kim Priestap writes:
“If just wanting world [peace], talking about world peace is enough to get the Nobel Peace Prize then every beauty pageant winner should have gotten one. “
Obama said he felt humbled and unworthy of being counted in the company of the “transformative figures” of history who had won the prize.
Maybe CNN and Wolf Blitzer would care to factcheck this one for actual accomplishments in the pursuit of peace? Even President Obama isn’t buying it. He doesn’t sound humbled; more like embarrassed.
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership,” he said, speaking in the White House Rose Garden. “I will accept this award as a call to action.”
Kanye West, at this point had to interrupt the acceptance speech with the following:
“Hey, hey Barack, I’m really happy for you, I’mma let you finish, but I just want to say his teleprompter had one of the best bids of all time. OF ALL TIME.”
The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” citing his fledgling push for nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world.
What about Reagan’s push for nuclear disarmament?
What about Bush’s “outreach to the Muslim world”?
Just 12 days into his presidency, what had President Obama done thus far to join the ranks of Carter, Gore, and Arafat in garnering such a prestigious nomination as the highly credible Nobel Peace Prize?
1. He campaigned in 2008 to escalate the “necessary” war in Afghanistan
2. He campaigned in 2008 to invade a sovereign ally, Pakistan, to go after al Qaeda and out-Bush, Bush.
153+ were killed within the first week of of his peace presidency, including the continuation of Predator drone attacks in Pakistan.
Obama has been widely credited with improving America’s global image after the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, who alienated both friends and foes with go-it-alone policies like the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Bush alienated friends with “go-it-alone” policies? Really?!
So Bush can be credited for the Obama peace prize award.
President Obama campaigns in ’08 against President Bush; and goes around the world on his grand Apology Tour and wins acclaim.
Niiiiiiice….
But critics called the Nobel’s committee’s decision premature, given that Obama so far has made little tangible headway as he grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea.
The White House had no idea the Nobel announcement was coming. Obama, who got the news of the prize in a pre-dawn call from his press secretary, now also has the burden of living up to its expectations.
The first African-American to hold his country’s highest office, Obama, 48, has struggled with a slew of foreign policy problems bequeathed to him by Bush, while taking a more multilateral approach than his predecessor.
Despite troubles at home including a struggling economy that have eroded his once-lofty approval ratings, the Democratic U.S. president is still widely seen around the world as an inspirational figure.
How did President Bush not exercise diplomacy and multilateralism?
Yes. Bush’s fault.
Also blogging:
The Anchoress
Bottomline Upfront
Brutally Honest
Bookworm Room
Gateway Pundit
The Radio Patriot
Michelle Malkin
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
I thought Obama’s own remarks regarding the prize were right on target. The Nobel Peace prize has very often been awarded in the cause of furthering peace — giving a boost to someone who is trying to bring about some sort of meritorious transformation, rather than solely being an award for some type of achievement (like the other Nobels and like, for example, the Oscars).
The Nobel Committee likes what Obama is trying to do and is trying to give him a helping hand in this. You can legitimately argue whether or not Obama’s approach to peace deserves such encouragement, but it’s a waste of emotion to argue whether or not he “deserves” the award. He’s officially stated that he doesn’t deserve to be honored, but that he views the award as encouragement for the direction in which he’s trying to take the country.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Examples, please, of other people who have received the Nobel Peace Prize, not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead.
Excellent response, Aye.
A few recent examples:
Intergovernment council on climate change 2007
Shirin Ebadi 2003
Kim Dae-jung 2000
International campaign to ban landmines 1997
East Timor peace activists 1996
Pugwash 1995
Arafat, Peres, Rabin 1994
etc.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA (nb: note that not all awardees went on to achieve what the Nobel Committee hoped that they would)
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
So, you’re prepared to say that the folks on the list you provided had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead?
Interesting.
False, but interesting.
Bush liberated 50 million people in 2 countries, planting the seeds of democracy. Truly stable democracies and greater human rights are still a long way off in those places. Does Bush still get his prize today, for what may be bound to happen generations from now? Or for at least giving it the ol’ college try for effort and having his heart in the right place?
President Bush was allegedly nominated for the Peace Prize
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp
I am unaware of any precedent for Nobel Peace prizes being awarded to encourage wars of liberation, declared by outside powers. Perhaps some sort of prize should be awarded for the declaration of “good wars,” (without getting into the arguments over whether or not the Iraq War qualifies as such), but it seems oxymoronic to give a peace prize for the declaration of war.
P.S. Note also that it was claimed that Bush was nominated for the Nobel Prize only 11 days after his inauguration, beating Obama’s nomination by 1 day.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry,
Please reread your link, because that’s not what the urban legend site says.
Also note, they can’t count.
Inauguration: Jan 20th.
Deadline: Feb 1st.
31 days in January…..
I love this quote on your Snopes link:
Apparently, the Messiah is a remarkable achiever of non-achievements.
MARTTI AHTISAARI (2008 laureate) for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts vs. Obama’s 12 days of dithering and blathering.
Yet who has greater recognition for accomplishments, real and imagined?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
That darned reading comprehension thing is tricky, eh?
This should show future Presidents, that is if we are allowed to have them, how to win the Peace Prize. Fly all around the world and bad mouth your country, working to destroy your country,and bankrupting the USA. Sure winner!
The Prize wasn’t awarded after 12 days; he was merely nominated. Apparently more than a hundred people are nominated every year; so a nomination is no big deal; by the time the decision had been made to give Obama the prize, the Committee had more grist for its decision to give him a helping hand.
(by the way, the wording in my Snopes link was changed, just moments after I posted my link. The wording was different (you may be able to find a Google cache version; I don’t have time to search) and the conclusion was “TRUE” rather than “Mixed.”)
With regard to Mr. Ahtisaari, this was a well-deserved lifetime achievement award. As I wrote, sometimes Peace Prizes are true awards for achievement, e.g. Ahtisaari, and sometimes they are to encourage hoped for future achievement (e.g. climate change mitigation). I think it’s perfectly obvious why the Nobel Committee chose to give Obama a boost right now. He’s in a very powerful position and the committee likes his approach to global problems and is cognizant of his current difficulties, which threaten support for his overall agenda. Of course, it’s entirely political, but “peace” is often a political challenge.
Also, even in the sciences, there are many Nobel awardees who got prizes for “discoveries” which were later disproved. A lot of years, I quarrel over the choice of the Heisman Trophy winner. It’s all human subjectivity.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye (#8)
Guys, I changed the wording of my post before I got your comments. Part of the problem is that the wording of the Snopes link was changed, literally moments after I posted the link.
– Larry W/HB
I believe you, as they’ve already updated it with the reference to Obama’s award.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
We know he was nominated in 12; awarded today. The point being, why he even deserved nomination, 12 days into his presidency. What had he accomplished other than campaigning on the message of “hope” and “change” and that he wasn’t Bush? Some accomplishment. Contrast that to Ahtisaari’s decades of real work.
@Wordsmith (#12)
As I wrote, there are more than 100 nominees every year (I think). Obviously, the threshold for nomination is very trivial. Anyway, we don’t need to argue. Obama acknowledges that the award was political and so do I. – Larry W/HB
The winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace BRIBE (er Prize) is…….
I predict he will win one every year he is in office — so 3 more of these type days! All he has
to do is keep trashing our country, continue his membership of the tyrant fraternity,
ignore Honduras’ right to follow their constitution, turn a blind eye to those offering their
lives for a cause of freedom, let the far left agenda blossom and continue his march against
free enterprise and agricultural efforts…(The Gulf Shores are being targeted/discussed for govt
takeover and full control of the fishing industry by the environmental movement)….
He will promote peace as he will have brought our country to it’s knees and we can no longer fight.
MEchelle must have the jets warming up so she can go shopping for another couture
outfit or two or three…for the prize ceremony.
However, I just know that I am dreaming and will wake up from this bizarre dream….any moment now…
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
The change of wording on the Snopes page is irrelevant to the issue that you are incorrect on.
Bush was not nominated in 2001. The Snopes page (new version and old) is clear that there was no evidence to support that claim.
He was supposedly nominated in 2002, which would be well beyond the 11 day time period that you presented.
The original header/title of the page puts forth the idea that Bush was nominated in 2002 and pronounces it as “True”.
I have the entire original Snopes page saved to my desktop because you cannot copy/paste directly. The best I can offer at this moment however is a Google search screenshot showing the old wording of the title:
View at EasyCaptures.com
The quoted portion I put in post #8 is from the original version of the Snopes page.
PS…I’d still like to know which folks on the list you provided had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead.
@Aye (#15)
Look, I discovered the error about 2001 vs 2002 before you did. I’d already posted my correction before you posted your gotcha. Anyway, it’s utterly trivial and not worth the time of either of us. Note, by the way, that there’s no “official” list of nominees –either for 2001 or for 2002. It’s all just unnamed “sources.” – Larry W/HB
Why am I not surprised to see larry here defending “legend in the making” obama?
Larry, his nomination and win is utterly disgusting and clearly a middle finger to the previous president/admin while attempting to influence obama.
A short list of the people passed over:
@Aye Chihuahua:
And which would make sense, coming on the heels of the liberation of Afghanistan, “fighting terrorism and promoting world peace,” toward the end of 2001. Taking decisive action to topple a brutal regime was and remains a significant and bold act of bringing about “hope” and “change”.
Obama says Nobel Peace Prize is “call to action”
InTrade had action with Hu Jia, Morgan Tsvangirai, Thich Quang Do, Ingrid Betancourt, Nicolas Sarkozy, Tony Blair, with Pete Seeger having the most, just behind “Anyone else.”
Obama was listed but had no action as did Michael Jackson and Bono.
@Wordsmith: Has the Nobel Peace prize ever been given to an outside, invading power, fighting a “war of liberation.” As I write this, I don’t know, but I doubt it. As I wrote, giving a Peace Prize for declaring and fighting a war seems a bit oxymoronic. – Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Speaking of prizes…someone just sent me a link to the Heisman Trophy Awards Voting…maybe BHO should win this year for possibly watching a collegiate game and staying off of the tv for 3 hours…which would promote peace and quiet.
http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/
@Wordsmith:
I agree that a nomination for Bush in 2002 would have made perfect sense.
It’s really a shame that Leftists, who are fortunate enough not to live under the cruel boot of tyranny, refuse to recognize the accomplishment of freeing tens of millions of people.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Which of the nominees you posted in #3 had no actual accomplishments at the time their prizes were awarded….but mere good intentions instead?
I’ve asked this several times already but the answer seems to be resisting.
Finally, the “claim” that President Bush was nominated in 2001 is not supported by any evidence, as noted by the Snopes page….yet you posted the claim anyway.
Are you a believer that the moon landing didn’t happen as well? That is, after all, a really popular theory on the Interwebz. In fact, that theory is arguably more popular than the 2001 Nobel Prize claim.
Giving the Peace Prize to someone who has accomplished absolutely nothing….now that right there ladies and gentlemen is oxymoronic, or…maybe just plain moronic.
Someone mentioned the Heisman?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim #21:
Not at all; anymore than anyone can believe that the “peace” movement actually promotes peace. The anti-war movement, when they have their way, bring about more suffering and more violence. They don’t bring peace, because they protest against the wrong side, aligning with communists, dictators, and brutally corrupt regimes.
Has a world leader ever been nominated for the nobel peace prize 12 days into his presidency with a resume of accomplishments as vacuous as the current PotUS has to merit such a “covetous” award?
Rumor just hitting my email is that a White House staffer submitted the nomination…will be interesting to see who indeed did nominate this poseur.
Maybe Larry could defend why Arafat got one. He started a war, too.
Openid.aol.com/runnswim,
You’re soooo right. What these guys are missing is that in order to bring would some end to these on going wars we need to be civil. Idle threats and killing civilians isn’t the way to bring peace in our own country nevertheless the countries that already hate us. What the award commitees are doing is actually listening to what the President is saying, watching what’s he’s doing and obviously not watching Fox “Opinion” News. I actually have a hardtime calling what they do news. They spent more time reporting on some idiot trying to outrun the police in Texas today and talking about what the President. Well I guess in their case that was a good thing.
Just to add to who is known to be on the short list, BBC notes that Norway’s NRK television – apparently with a good track record at guessing the recipient in the past – focused on Zimbabwe’s PM, Morgan Tsvangirai, just the night before.
This, in itself, is somewhat of a black mark on the NPP since Tsvangirai was caught on tape discussing assassination of his opponent in the 2002 Zimbabwe presidential elections. LOL
Yeah… good choice for the peace award.
BTW, Larry… welcome back and congrats to your daughter for her marathon swim. Just wanted to let you know that 205 nominations were offered for the 2009 prize per the Nobel FAQs on their website. 33 of them were organizations.
Also, we have no idea when Obama’s name was put into the hat, nor by whom. Any nominations received/postmarked after Feb 1 from the preceding year can get carried over to the following year. So it’s also entirely possible that Obama’s name was offered up while he was still a candidate, or perhaps while PEBO.
The Nobelprize.org site does have a page to view a general list of those qualified to be nominators but it’s a slow load. I suspect their server is getting bombarded today. I got thru, and here’s the qualifications to nominate an entity or individual.
Considering Obama’s ties to universities and professors of law, social sciences and theology, my guess is his name was offered up by some in the academia. Presumably, this may even qualify Bill Ayers, who teaches at Univ of Chicago with a “social justice” curriculum. Considering his past, the prospect that he may qualify as a Peace Prize nominee is tinged with irony.
We can take that irony further into the bizarre when you consider that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was also a professor of theology at Chicago Theological Seminary which, according to the above, also qualifies him as a nominator.
@Moving Further To The Left:
If you compare a number of presidential speeches, you’ll find a lot of similarities: Talk of democracy, freedom, human rights, etc.
The difference is, President Bush actually did something other than “dither” and blather.
What did President Obama do to show support for Iranians who protested their election fraud?
How is he on the right side of history, in regards to Honduras? Nice when you have Chavez and Castro patting you on the back and cheering you on, ain’t it?
And CNN? MSNBC?
Please….
Ah yes… it was the civility of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that led to peace for WWII. Thank you for that reminder of history, Left. LOL
Now, I take issue with your comment that the US has dealt in idle threats and killing civilians (assuming you mean intentionally, as collateral damage is a fact in any warfare). I do believe you’re talking about the other guys – the global Islamic jihad movements. It is they who do the killing of civilians… a fact you obviously decide to overlook in order to appease your idolatry of the Big Zero.
And perhaps you’re too young, and history deficient (which is obvious from your above quoted comment), to recognize that the US has always been hated. It was anti-American sentiment post WWII that inspired the best seller, The Ugly American in 1958. You think this stuff just started? What has public education come to…. sigh
Because I contributed, if memory serves, a total of about $75 to his campaign, I seem to be permanently on the Obama email listserve. Here’s the text of the email he just now sent to his supporters:
LW/HB
The O’schpiel is close to… if not identical to… his press conference this AM Larry. I agree with Slate’s Mickey Kaus. He should have thanked them, and declined. His acceptance still highlights his narcissistic nature, his lack of accomplishments and helps him battle his reputation that he is overcelebrated for his actual performance. Believe it or not, I would have given him kudos for that honesty.
Thanks, Larry.
Glad he’s finally acknowledging president Bush’s contributions, here. Just wish he’d publically name and thank him.
God bless the heavy lifters, those serving in our Armed Forces.
Wordsmith,
I didn’t mention Bush but I am glad that you did. You are absolutely,positively correct. Bush did do something. He ruined our economy, He staged a war in Iraq for reason’s no one really seems to know other than to hunt down and kill the person that wasn’t responsible for 9/11, He and his Vice President left office with the lowest approval ratings in U.S. history. He almost single handedly ruin the Republican party. He and Cheney basically handed the keys to the Whitehouse to President Obama. Would like to for me to continue. Probably not. So if you want to pass judgement on our current President it would probably be wiser to look at your past President.
Wow… what a surprise the same ol’ BS talking points spew forth… /sarc
Then of course, there’s that telling comment:
More hypocritical horse manure from the those who believe themselves to be morally superior. Let’s get this straight, Left… if you want to lecture us by calling the Big Zero “our” POTUS (assuming the power to speak for us), then you shouldn’t be revealing your own unmitigated disrespect for the electoral system and Oval Office by disassociating yourself from prior administrations.
G-D fair weather Americans… if you’re insane enough to call tripling to quadrupling the national debt in nine months (as opposed to doubling it in eight years) “fair weather”.
Thanks to everyone. Happy trails to all, until we meet again.
P.S. I was asked: >>Maybe Larry could defend why Arafat got one. He started a war, too.<<
The Peace prize was given to Arafat + 2 Israelis, mainly to encourage them to keep talking to each other.
@Aye: You win. You’ve proven conclusively that you are the better man. And I’m a tinfoil hat wearing nutcase.
My point was that the Peace Prize is unique among the Nobels, in that it has been used to encourage what the committee views as being meritorious efforts, as opposed to simply being a reward for past achievements. I gave valid examples of this. You object that Obama is an extreme case of this, in that others had at least minimal prior achievement (e.g. climate change panel). I don’t have a quarrel with your point of view on this, but I think that my explanation of the rationale for the award was entirely correct.
Bottom Line, the Committee just BOUGHT another sitting US President.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been cheapened beyond belief by this award, it already meant very little, after having been awarded to the likes of Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat, but today took the cake…
@Mata. What’s a relevant comparison is not absolute magnitude of debt, but rather debt:GDP ratio. Don’t forget that 700+ billion (the Wall Street bailout) was a Bush administration initiative. This is roughly equal in magnitude to the ‘stimulus” itself. And also don’t forget that the fiscal 2009 budget was basically the Bush administration budget. Of the debt which has accrued thus far, most of the new debt is attributable to Bush (Wall Street bailout + fiscal ’09 budget). Only 40% of the “stimulus” has yet been spent.
Prediction: I see the economy coming back strong over the next 3 quarters. I also see health care being passed. I also see the election prospects for 2010 being quite a bit different from what is being currently forecast, although I plan on continuing to vote for my local GOP congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, because I’m a firm “believer” in divided governance.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
You mean *this* debt/GDP ratio, Larry? The one that continues to shoot straight up under Obama… not even including his cap/trade, health care and ARRA stimulus spending??
See larger version here.
Allow me to correct you on your “40%” of stimulus money being spent. I have no idea where you get that notion when even Christine Romer admits in August that only $100 bill would be spent by the second quarter. Even that is a dubious fact that, for some reason with Mr. Transparency, is difficult to prove.’
Now, unless you are graduated from the same math classes as Obama, I can’t see $100 bil as anywhere close (even if we assume that is accurate) to 40% of $787 billion.
A few more corrections INRE:
That would be the Dem Congress budget, Larry. Last I looked, only Congress can appropriate… not the President. Bush can be held responsible for not using his veto pen often enough, and with that I can fully agree. However it’s still a drop in the bucket.
And let’s not forget that less than half of the TARP cash last fall was spent by Bush’s money god, Henry Paulson. So you can take the other half+ and attribute that to Obama’s spending. He could, after all, have put it back in the coffers. He and Geithner did not. That spending onus goes into the Obama/Congress column.. not the Bush/Congress column.
Notice what they both have in common? Then take a very solid look at the debt/GDP graph. When did spending start to skyrocket? Coincidently about the same time the Dems seized both chambers of Congress, and control of the purse strings.
The socialists, with their loss in Germany and Obama’s loss at the IOC, were (via their Nobel Prize Socialist Branch) suddenly willing to have their ulterior motives run naked through the streets to crown Obama lest he fall even further. The Nobel mole is no more in stealth mode; now we know that they are willing to do anything, even if it means exposing who they really are.
Unfortunately for the Nobel folks, 12 days would be called to question even by a stooge. But guess what, even at 9 months, Obama has done NOTHING of any significance. But soon he will, for the sake of his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama will order more WAR on Afghanistan — else he will be seen as a quitter, a failure, a REAL LOSER. Peace be with you, Obama.
We are aware of the cynical manipulations of bringing the “stimulus” to bear prior to the 2010 elections. We expected this; not naive. I doubt whether any of us who have been hurt by the economic dive will forgive and forget. If you believe we have short memories, dream on.
What I will be thinking of is Obama’s adviser on Muslim affairs, Dalia Mogahed suggesting that Sharia law is “misunderstood” and that a majority of the women of the world like and adhere to it.
What I will be remembering is the theft of the caucuses during the primary by ACORN thugs for Obama.
What I won’t forget are the bailed out banks, given plenty of time to gear up for the change in credit rules, now sending me notices that come January this excellent customer will be subjected to a “change in rates” in February. 2010? I can’t wait. And no absentee ballot this time. I’ll be there personally to vote these crooks out of office.
@Mata: Again, W Bush is responsible for the lion’s share of the increase to date. That’s what your graph shows (in the context of my comments in #40). I acknowledge that Obama supported the W Bush Wall Street bailout. You also must acknowledge that the GOP, had McCain been elected, would have offered a stimulus of at least 60% of the size of the Obama stimulus, so we really have only about $300 billion in extra debt attributable to Obama over that which would have been generated under continued GOP governance. This is practically a rounding error, and the stimulus wasn’t Obama’s personal idea but was the idea of a team of very highly qualified (albeit Keynesian) economists. We’ll all get the chance to determine, down the road, if this extra $300 billion was money well spent.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I was finishing off the above comment when you were posting, Larry. (had to battle getting that graph to fit…).
Please revisit and you will find my comments about Bush/Congress vs Obama/Congress. And I shall wait for you to comment on that line going vertical when the Dems seized control of House and Senate in 2007.
Remember, you will not convince me that the POTUS has Congressional budgetary and appropriation power. They can only say no. However as spendy as the GOP Congress was, the Dem Congress make the GOP look like Ebenezer Scrooge… and all in a couple years.
Mata, there was no spike in federal spending when the Dems assumed control of congress. Debt is a function of spending vs revenue and the latter took a nose dive when the economy tanked.
With regard to who is responsible for the spending which did occur:
The President (or Executive Branch) prepares the Federal Budget. Congress amends and approves it. 2/3 is non-discretionary spending. I don’t have the data about how much the final budget passed by Congress exceeded that presented originally by the President. I strongly doubt that the final amount which Congress approved significantly exceeded that which the President proposed. I do know that the 2009 fiscal budget passed by Congress was almost precisely that proposed by the W Bush executive branch.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
We Are Being Setup … Obama “Wining” the Nobel Peace Prize
At the very least Obama is a useful idiot with a massive ego. This will only feed into his delusion that he can bring “World Peace”. I am sure Russia/Iran & China were behind this. They are setting up America for Appeasement via Obama which will lead to Nuclear Mushroom clouds over NYC. May God help us!!
Our Nuclear Arsenal Is Essential to our Survival!!!
America’s nuclear arsenal & a President willing to use it have prevented a land war with Russia & China. Also our nuclear arsenal is a counterbalance to Eurasia’s “Massive” man power advantage. Oh, Russia/Iran & China are laughing right now.
–State Dept. spokesperson
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Very funny Larry. From October 2008 until January 2009 President Bush was only responsible for continuing resolutions to keep the government running because the democrats running the House refused to submit a budget for him to sign.
PurseStrings Pelosi made the decision to hold up the budget until after the election because Bush was going to veto it. What Bush was not responsible for was $410 billion that included and 8% across the board increase and a ton of earmarks that Anti-earmark Obama signed, in his office without his customary fanfare.
President Bush spent $267 billion on TARP and decided it was enough. President elect Obama requested the remainder of the money in a letter to Congress January 12 to be ready for him on day 1.
So, you can shave quite a bit of the late 2008 TARP/Fiscal 2009 budget off the Bush record.
To the best of my knowledge, the W Bush Federal Budget was 2.97 trillion. The final budget passed was 3.1 trillion. This is a difference of $103 billion. This is trivial.
With regard to whether or not the whole $700 billion authorized under W Bush would have been released to Wall Street: this is entirely conjectural.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Let’s examine larry’s past predictions, shall we?
Obama will pick moderates–WRONG
Obama will govern from the center–Even more WRONG
Those are just two big ones he got wrong that I recall off the top of my head.
Anyone else want to bet he’s wrong about the economy and the 2010 elections? I’d say it was a sucker bet considering who made the claims.
He may be right about health care destruction being passed as the dems are determined to ride that missile into the ground no mater what.
Larry, I remained on the same debt/GDP ratio you did when referring to the spike in the graph, commencing over a year earlier than the economy tanked a mere month or two prior to the 2008 Presidential election. So that revenue to debt under the Dems… in charge of the budgets and purse strings since 2007… gets an official pass from you? I see.
It’s also interesting that you decide to place the power of Congress to appropriate in the hands of the Oval Office merely because the WH writes a budget. When it comes to military command and foreign policy, the buck stops at the Oval Office. When it comes to spending, the buck stops at Congress. For all the whining of Pelosi/Reid since 2007 about spending, it was always in their power to reign it in. They did not, despite revenues falling, they still spent.
And you can’t blame $5 bill annually on the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, nor the fractional defense budget either. As you can see by the below chart for the Obama/Dem Congress budget, ( larger version here), defense spending is pretty far down on the totem pole for total spending. As a matter of fact, when you look at this chart, you can see how far we have strayed from the Constitutional powers of federal authority. Homeland Security, defense, treasury, justice…. all the bottom of the barrel compared to entitlement programs and the EPA, fer heavens sake.
There’s another graph below that with the O’math fallacy of reducing the deficit. The problem is, and always was, with O’math is that he assumes he is inheriting the decades of growth prior to his coronation. The fact is quite the opposite. Our earning capacity is going down, our taxes are going up, and the revenue he anticipates is going to fall quite short of the mark.
But again, time will be the proof in the pudding for you hardcare O’faithful out there.
Your “predictions” are a pretty dream. You totally bypass the effect of Bernanke’s exit from propping up the economy, which sends the interest rates up.. which tanks the housing industry and gives us a new ration of foreclosures and short sales. All of us are sitting on a toxic mortgage after rates rise… even if you are still ahead of the game now. By the way, via Bernanke’s talk last night and most speculation of economists today, they are guessing the beginning of 2010. Just Bernanke opening his mouth about rate increases helped the dollar value, and resulted in mortgage rates going thru three increases today.
Add the tanking of the commercial real estate coming up… with over a trillion coming due in 2010 of commercial notes. Then there’s the new mortgage failure on the horizon, FHA and GNMA.
Put together extended and rising unemployment over the 12-18 months, increasing rates, mortgages that are still toxic and added to them, increased taxes, and out of control Obama/Congress spending, and frankly your predictions resemble one heck of a Disney/Pixar animation movie. You oughta register that screenplay with the WGA.
My predictions? I suggest everyone batten down on the finances for the next 5-10 years, and cut down your overhead to managable levels because we’ve got a rocky ride in front of us. The attempts to “save the homeowner” and the foreclosure moratorium did nothing more than delay the inevitable. Then it may be more difficult because the delayed assets will pile on to the new foreclosure/short sale assets. It’s this simple… there is no economic recovery without a housing recovery. And right now housing is propped up by the feds right along with the banks.
Eventually we will have to pay the piper. And the longer we try to stave off that moment, the longer it’s going to take to recover.