California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics

[Berkut]

The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems.

Yeah, it was the Republicans that insisted that Fannie and Freddie loan billions to poor people who cannot pay it back.

You just make yourself look more and more hysterically partisan with very post.

[saskganesh]

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are simply not comparable.

in the internet age, every argument is equal, except for the ones you disagree with, which are all biased.   

[jimmy olsen]

How can you say the article was biased if you didn't even read it? I thought his commentary was quite moderate.

I stopped reading after these 3 sentences. My comments: you cannot compare state deficits with federal deficits. GW Bush is the main reason we are in this mess. Obama has the same story as many other countries in the same situation.

The California deficit this year is now north of $26 billion. The U.S. federal deficit will be, according to the latest numbers, almost 70 times larger.
Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.
Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth.

What sentence in that paragraph is wrong? Bush had massive deficits and Obama has had even larger deficits. Who believes that the US will be able to pay for this without a huge tax increase? Aside from Britain what other 1st world country has rolled out a similarly large stimulus? Most have criticized Obama for doing so.

Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.

The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.

Why?

The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.

[Admiral Yi]

Comparing state deficits and federal deficits is wrong.

It depends on the banking sector in that country. Most countries with big banking sectors (US, UK, Ireland, Iceland, Netherlands, etc) have done more or less the same as Obama did. The writer calls that "nobody"?? You could also read the opinion of Krugman, a economist, Nobelprice winner. Also a "nobody"? Obama handles a bail-out AND a stimulation program. You can disagree with it, but writing that he has no story is foolish. He may not have a Republican story, but his policies are quite common in Europe. Disagreeing is ok, imo. Making it sound foolish is foolish. Partisan rhetoric.

The Republicans should shut up. For two reasons. They are the main responsibles for the lack of regulations, a main reason of the problems. And when they shut up, as a reward they will receive the presidency over 3 years. Because this economic mess will take a lot longer than 3 years. Then they can try to solve the problems.

This "Republicans should shut up" line I keep hearing makes absolutely no fucking sense to me.  The potential negative consequences of an overly large deficit are not subject to a popularity contest, they don't go away if sufficiently large numbers of people are in favor of them.  They don't go away if the people issuing the warnings have low approval ratings or lost elections or cheated on their spouses or are opposed to gay marriage or are ugly. 

And if you didn't notice this story is not about TARP or the (first) stimulus bill, it's about the likelihood of passing health reform.  Will it cost money?  Of course.  Will Obama raise taxes to pay for it or will he pack it into the deficit?  The author is making the prediction that he won't raise taxes; if he's wrong he's wrong but a prediction is not partisan spin.

[DGuller]

Why?

The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.

Clinton's folly was giving in to the Republican deregulation ideology that dominated ever since Reagan took office.  He deserves some of the blame, most certainly, but he wasn't advancing the Democratic agenda when he made his most disastrous deregulatory decisions.

[Berkut]

Why?

The regulations that caused the crisis were passed with Clinton's approval along with most people's on both sides of the isle.

Clinton's folly was giving in to the Republican deregulation ideology that dominated ever since Reagan took office.  He deserves some of the blame, most certainly, but he wasn't advancing the Democratic agenda when he made his most disastrous deregulatory decisions.

Wow, that is a really excellent use of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Nicely done!

[Valmy]

It's almost like a perfect storm.  The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.

I do so love a bipartisan effort.

[Berkut]

It's almost like a perfect storm.  The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.

I do so love a bipartisan effort.

Only good things can happen when such visionaries as Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich put their heads together!

[alfred russel]

It's almost like a perfect storm.  The left put forward an unsustainable lending program to unqualified people and the right worked to deregulate the market so tons of money could be leveraged against those loans.

I do so love a bipartisan effort.

That seems to be an emerging consensus, but I wonder to what extent either is based in reality. In both cases they seem to echo points that would play well in focus groups and assign blame to the other party, and they may have some truth to them. But the riskiest loans were done privately and the Bush administration was internationally criticized for overregulation prior to the recession, so they just don't ring very true to me. Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.

[Berkut]

Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.

Come on, you cannot possibly hysterically rant and rave about the Evil Republicans if you think like that!

It is all Reagans fault, except for the parts that are all Bushs fault!

[Zanza]

I blame America.

[Valmy]

It is all Reagans fault, except for the parts that are all Bushs fault!

I am pretty sure the whole thing was put in motion by John C. Frémont in the 1856 Presidential election.  The vile Republican plan has finally come to fruition.

[Eddie Teach]

The author is making the prediction that he won't raise taxes; if he's wrong he's wrong but a prediction is not partisan spin.

It can be.

[DGuller]

Sometimes the economy goes through boom and bust cycles that aren't directly tied to the failures of Washington.

Unfortunately for Washington, it's been fairly well established that government actions can exacerbate or mitigate any natural booms or busts, so Washington will always be on the hook for the economic performance.

[Admiral Yi]

It can be.

Sure.  But if you have, like we do here, a predicted outcome (Obama won't raise taxes to fund health care) that *precedes* a decision by principals (blue dogs voting (then it pretty much defeats the purpose of spinning.