Effect of the election on the housing market

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
In true Brian fashion, you completely ignored the part about Obama continuing Bush’s policies. Is that pragmatic, too? Now, if you say that it is pragmatic, that would lend credence to Bush’s policies being correct. If its not pragmatism, then Obama is indeed a right-wing establishmentarian.

[/quote]

Bush’s policies were not pragmatic. The wars were misguided retaliatory attacks on our enemies, thinking that we would beat them into submission and total annihilation. The redneck and evangelical elements of our society wanted that after the 9/11 attacks. They did not understand that political and trade engagement was a better solution.

Obama’s continuing the wars at first, and his withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in a cautionary manner, are indeed pragmatic. His approach best serves American national interests.

The wars were like getting into real estate at the peak. Once you get it, its hard to extricate yourself.

On Obama and the financial industry here’s what posted before:

remember that the bailouts of Wall Street were started under Bush.

Stabilizing the financial system without propping up the Wall Street banking establishment would have required nationalizing the Wall Street firms and kicking out all the executives.

It was something that the Bush Administration was unwilling to do because of ideology. At that time, we were still in the early stages of the financial bailouts, and Bush still wanted to show the world that we could handle it through the “free-market”.

So it turned out that we effectively nationalized the banks (without calling it nationalization), but kept the executives in place.

When Obama came into office he could have punished the Wall Street executives, but he chose the expedient route thinking that a strong recovery would makes things alright.

Rather than being chastened, Wall Street executives grow bolder believing that, being too-big-to-fail, they had successfully blackmailed us.

Now that that economy is stagnating or heading south again, we have a problem.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).

Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.

You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).

Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.

You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).

Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.

You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).

Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.

You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the one hand, you argue that Bush’s wars were “misguided, retaliatory attacks” (your words), but Obama’s handling of the same wars (and using largely the same policies) support American interests. Huh? First off, while Obama is winding down operations in Iraq, he is leaving 50,000 troops in Iraq. Look at that number again: 50,000. Equal to approximately 1/3 of the total (150,000) that were there previously. So, you cannot argue that this won’t be costly, nor can you argue that Obama is effectively rebutting a Bush-era decision (especially since Obama has said he’s willing to increase our presence “significantly” and “quickly” if the situation deteriorates).

Second, Obama is nowhere near winding down operations in Afghanistan, and, in point of fact, has upped the ante. Not just by sending in another 40,000 combat troops, but by expanding drone strikes and intel gathering operations throughout the AfPak region. Your attempt to bootstrap from Obama’s verbal promise to withdraw is misleading because Obama himself has made clear that this withdrawal timetable is flexible, and driven entirely by the situation on the ground, which, we both know, is not good, to put it lightly.

You also didn’t address Gitmo or Patriot I/II. I find this extremely interesting. Is this pragmatic, too? He’s continuing the policy of extraordinary rendition as well. Right now, in a prison in Egypt, or Jordan, or Saudi, or Poland, there are people that Obama sent, solely because we couldn’t “extract” intel using our present methods. You know what that means, don’t you, Brian? So how do you answer the charges about Obama’s stance on the continuing erosion of American civil liberties, or his support of torture? Is that pragmatic? Does that support vital American interests, too?

[EconProf]

To those who think the Keynesian stimulus was worthwhile, consider the recent news from the United Kingdom: growth just jumped a surprising 3.2%
Why surprising? Because the UK has been embarking on severe government spending cutbacks of budgets, public employees, and programs. New York Times economist/columnist Krugman had predicted doom for their economy, so is again proving to be the perfect contrarian indicator. He recently said our stimulus was a failure because it wasn’t big enough.
To take another european example, Germany has long had the tightest EU fiscal discipline, and is now rewarded with strong growth, plummeting unemployment, and soaring exports. Most of the EU is running away from its love affair with big spending while we have embraced it. The resulting differences in growth rates and unemployment trends are telling.

[EconProf]

To those who think the Keynesian stimulus was worthwhile, consider the recent news from the United Kingdom: growth just jumped a surprising 3.2%
Why surprising? Because the UK has been embarking on severe government spending cutbacks of budgets, public employees, and programs. New York Times economist/columnist Krugman had predicted doom for their economy, so is again proving to be the perfect contrarian indicator. He recently said our stimulus was a failure because it wasn’t big enough.
To take another european example, Germany has long had the tightest EU fiscal discipline, and is now rewarded with strong growth, plummeting unemployment, and soaring exports. Most of the EU is running away from its love affair with big spending while we have embraced it. The resulting differences in growth rates and unemployment trends are telling.

[EconProf]

To those who think the Keynesian stimulus was worthwhile, consider the recent news from the United Kingdom: growth just jumped a surprising 3.2%
Why surprising? Because the UK has been embarking on severe government spending cutbacks of budgets, public employees, and programs. New York Times economist/columnist Krugman had predicted doom for their economy, so is again proving to be the perfect contrarian indicator. He recently said our stimulus was a failure because it wasn’t big enough.
To take another european example, Germany has long had the tightest EU fiscal discipline, and is now rewarded with strong growth, plummeting unemployment, and soaring exports. Most of the EU is running away from its love affair with big spending while we have embraced it. The resulting differences in growth rates and unemployment trends are telling.

[EconProf]

To those who think the Keynesian stimulus was worthwhile, consider the recent news from the United Kingdom: growth just jumped a surprising 3.2%
Why surprising? Because the UK has been embarking on severe government spending cutbacks of budgets, public employees, and programs. New York Times economist/columnist Krugman had predicted doom for their economy, so is again proving to be the perfect contrarian indicator. He recently said our stimulus was a failure because it wasn’t big enough.
To take another european example, Germany has long had the tightest EU fiscal discipline, and is now rewarded with strong growth, plummeting unemployment, and soaring exports. Most of the EU is running away from its love affair with big spending while we have embraced it. The resulting differences in growth rates and unemployment trends are telling.

[EconProf]

To those who think the Keynesian stimulus was worthwhile, consider the recent news from the United Kingdom: growth just jumped a surprising 3.2%
Why surprising? Because the UK has been embarking on severe government spending cutbacks of budgets, public employees, and programs. New York Times economist/columnist Krugman had predicted doom for their economy, so is again proving to be the perfect contrarian indicator. He recently said our stimulus was a failure because it wasn’t big enough.
To take another european example, Germany has long had the tightest EU fiscal discipline, and is now rewarded with strong growth, plummeting unemployment, and soaring exports. Most of the EU is running away from its love affair with big spending while we have embraced it. The resulting differences in growth rates and unemployment trends are telling.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]

Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

BTW, I think that Hillary Clinton has done a great job as Secretary of State.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]

Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

BTW, I think that Hillary Clinton has done a great job as Secretary of State.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]

Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

BTW, I think that Hillary Clinton has done a great job as Secretary of State.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Brian: Okay, let’s eliminate the disquisition on Wall Street and the bailouts, because that had nothing to do with my question and instead focus on your completely contradictory answer regarding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.[/quote]

Obama had no choice but to continue the Bush’s foreign policies for many reasons.

1) After strong-arming the world into supporting the wars, a turnabout by the United States would weaken our influence abroad. We have to change policies without admitting to failure. And we have to create an appearance of success while changing course. Obama needs to show the world that he’s a tough leader read to use American military might.

2) Domestically Obama cannot appear to be weak on defense and weak on terrorism. Here he’s making a pragmatic political choice which corresponds to 1) above.

3) On Gitmo and Patriot acts, no president who has certain powers wants to give them up. In my opinion, it’s Congress’ job to restrain the power of the presidency.

4) The general attitude of the American public, right now is that the wars and civil liberties are out of sight, out of mind (unlike during Vietnam when the draft was creating social unrest).
Jobs are most important. It seems like Obama made the pragmatic choice not to rock the boat on foreign policy, while working on the domestic and economic agenda.

BTW, I think that Hillary Clinton has done a great job as Secretary of State.

Obama is constrained on many fronts. It’s good that he’s a cool, cerebral president in this tumultuous period in our history.

[Author]

Posts