The Great Non Sequitur The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda

The Great Non Sequitur The Sleight of Hand Behind Obama's Agenda

www.washingtonpost.com

At the very center of our economic near-depression is a credit bubble, a housing collapse and a systemic failure of the banking industry. One can come up with a host of causes: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed by Washington (and greed) into improvident loans, corrupted bond-ratings agencies, insufficient regulation of new and exotic debt instruments, the easy money policy of Alan Greenspan's Fed, irresponsible bankers pushing (and then unloading in packaged loan instruments) highly dubious mortgages, greedy house-flippers, deceitful home buyers.

The list is long. But the list of causes of the collapse of the financial system does not include the absence of universal health care, let alone of computerized medical records. Nor the absence of an industry-killing cap-and-trade carbon levy. Nor the lack of college graduates. Indeed, one could perversely make the case that, if anything, the proliferation of overeducated, Gucci-wearing, smart-ass MBAs inventing ever more sophisticated and opaque mathematical models and debt instruments helped get us into this credit catastrophe.

And yet with our financial house on fire, Obama makes clear both in his speech and his budget that the essence of his presidency will be the transformation of health care, education and energy. Four months after winning the election, six weeks after his swearing-in, Obama has yet to unveil a plan to deal with the banking crisis.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I've been wondering what's really going on and this, finally, is a clear explanation. We have a crisis in the financial sector that has the entire world teetering on the brink of economic collapse but instead of coming up with a plan to fix that problem, our president comes up with a plan to change energy policy, reform health care, and redo education. It really is the ultimate sleight of hand.

Obama uses the techniques he has used in the past to such success: he says things that we know are true such as "The time is now" or "Yes we can" or any of the others, then links them to entirely unrelated conclusions. In this case the house is burning down so he wants to install storm windows because that will make the house more valuable and warm in the winter.

He is using this crisis to change things he wants to change for ideological reasons, not because they will solve our present problem, and taking advantage of people's desperation and even terror to shove it through.

www.washingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Excellent find. Flag/Star for you!

This video should further explain the above post, enjoy.

reply to post by Angry Danish


great video! especially since the shock described can be used to bring in any new policy. I've read quite a bit about these techniques with individuals. Apparently one's identity is destabilized, like turning a solid into a liquid, and for a short time it can be reshaped into something else completely, then it becomes stable in the new form. No reason involved, no personal choice. just whatever is introduced at the right time.

I am outraged that we are being used in this way. Destabilize an entire nation so that nation's identity can be transformed into something completely different. Not just a nation but destabilize the entire world for a few people (whoever they are) to get a reshaped global government, if that is what is going on in the bigger picture.

The distraction factor of the outrageous spending keeps discussion from concentrating on the fact that they don't solve the problem, that the problem is in the financial sector, and that this administration has done nothing to help the REAL PROBLEM. Why not? Stop delaying, stop spending. Come up with a plan to fix the financial sector!!!

The best part of the video above is that it ends by saying that INFORMATION is the tool of resistance. Almost sounds like DENY IGNORANCE.

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government. From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president's economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Michael Boskin in Wall Street Journal

This is one of the biggest changes that will come of our shock-based transformation. Once 50% of the people will NOT be paying taxes and yet receive entitlements, it is in their best interests to keep voting for more and more entitlements because it will always be someone else paying for them.

the big problem is, somebody DOES have to pay for this stuff. This kind of sysrem is not sustainable. At best we can expect this (from the same article):

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.

I'm sure this is not the change anybody is hoping for: a lower standard of living.

It is clear that there is some serious polorization of thought here. If we are being "altered" as Americans to embrace ideas and policies that we don't really believe in, what about the ideas we are shifting from? The slight of hand spoken of here is far reaching, and began prior to the election of Obama. (War in Iraq?).

The reality here is that a s**t sandwich never tastes good, yet Obama eats his with vigor. I have not been manipulated into believing that solving our energy/healthcare/education crisis will allieveate our economic crisis, I have held this to be true during the entire Bush administration.

Do you really not see the link between these things? If we continue on in energy dependance, our "burning house" will be only ashes and there will be no effective plan to rebuild it. Our energy dependance on forign oil is the combustiable material feeding the fire.

Everyone can't be made happy or secure. A shift in the way we think as Americans is in order. We have become too dependant, wasteful, and stupid for our own good. The Gucci wearing mathmatician (like that exists) is trying to help. What are you doing?

Wow - a mainstream media outlet that's not Fox news is finally dissing Obama! Well, indirectly by stating the obvious, but still - it's a first step in the right direction.

And the Washington Post is correct. Where is Obama's plan to deal with the banking crisis? Is he giving up on it and instead focusing on issues he feels that he has a chance of affecting?

I hope that America is watching and plans to hold this man accountable - after all, his entire campaign was sold on the mantra of CHANGE and YES WE CAN. He promised to be able to do something about the financial crisis with a Democratic majority in Congress and by golly he's got it. So where are the results?

reply to post by Torsion girl


I totally agree that we must end dependence on foreign oil and move to energy sources less destructive to our earth but do not agree that putting money at this time into R&D will solve the problems now facing us. Yes we have many problems that must be solved in a timely way. What we're talking about here is the White House using a particular crisis--the financial one--to justify solutions to completely different problems.

Even if there were immediate domestic energy solutions--coal, for example--it would not get us out of the financial mess. I'm no coal expert, but assuming there is no practical "clean coal" yet, "dirty" coal might be an excellent solution to our energy problems. generate electricity with coal and use these to heat our homes, run our cars and even (don't know if this is possible) power our factories. it would not be a "green" solution but it would change our dependence on foreign oil. Or opening up ANWR or drilling for oil offshore. But obama would be very much opposed to these. His cap & trade proposals are another example of penalizing people for not doing things HIS way. He's not really looking to get off dependence on foreign oil, he's looking for a particular energy solution. Not solving the actual problem but trying to transform a country.

I certainly agree that things in the USA are far from perfect. I don't argue for either party's policies. I think there should be a third party, the Capitalist party, for to stand up for business people but without the strong religious element of the republicans. Even then I would want all three to work together, to mingle and massage three angles of vision to make this wonderful country even better.

I don't think there is any excuse for using one terrifying crisis to addess entirely different problems while leaving the terrifying crisis itself to get worse and worse.

It is nice that there are a few points we agree on. However, I think the problems that face our country are interrelated. For example, R&D puts our brightest minds to work, (let's face it: jobs stimulate the economy), and it is a method of advancing/expanding tech and other solutions for big problems. If our economy is to rebound, we need to be making the products we buy, and those products cannot continue to be inferrior.

If you read the energy plan of the new administration, you will see that it is multi-faceted. Expanding our carbon footprint with outdated tech (dirty coal, drilling) is not a solution. We need to get out from under things that damage our Earth and our society, they ultimately have bad impacts on our economy as well.

I have always believed that multi-party systems are higher functioning government, and that they better represent constituients. (This was also the intent of the Framers of the Constitution.) A party like the "Republicans" but without religious undertones is not likely to find success. (The R base in this country won't ever let go of their religion, and the left will never support the ideologies.) Capatalism has failed us. It has sent our jobs overseas, created massive banking/credit problems, poverty at home....(on and on).

There is no easy out, it took decades for our rank to slip, and it will take decades to climb back up in global stature. Short-sightedness is not an option. We have got to want to see the big picture if it is to come into focus.

I agree that the business people need better/fair representation from their government, but that does not mean that they should be able to participate in business practices that have ultimately bad outcomes for everyone else. GREEN energy is not a lofty idea, it is not a time waster. It is a long-term solution to big problems, and savy business people already embrace the idea.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
I've been wondering what's really going on and this, finally, is a clear explanation. We have a crisis in the financial sector that has the entire world teetering on the brink of economic collapse but instead of coming up with a plan to fix that problem, our president comes up with a plan to change energy policy, reform health care, and redo education. It really is the ultimate sleight of hand.

So the sleight of hand involves him doing exactly what he said he would do during his campaign when he laid out his 'agenda'? The campaign that led to him being voted into power? The position he holds with positive support of the majority of the US population?

Interesting. Quite deceptive.

reply to post by Torsion girl


I think we actually agree on most things! I certainly want green energy. We need to change the way we do things so earth can clean it up, though I think we would be better off to change some overall approaches in the process (long haul transport done differently or maybe less). I want to revamp education. We have so many new ways of doing things that changes need to be made, though not necessarily those on the wish lists of the teachers unions. Our schools are expected to do everything for everybody, and that's not realistic. I believe especially in health care reform. Our current system is not only broken, it is not sustainable as it is. Most people don't realize this. They think reform is just an option. It's a necessity. I believe in reform and am personally involved in that process.

The thing is, the immediate crisis facing us is in the financial sector. It could very well bring us down completely. That needs to be dealt with first. There is as yet no plan to deal with it. Billions of dollars have been pumped in with no discernible effect, and they won't give us details of how they were even supposed to work. Plain old spending is not going to fix this particular problem. And the amount of spending done since obama took office is huge. really huge. not only does it not address the biggest problem, but it itself might turn into a big problem with hyperinflation as well as the fact that the US has elbowed everyone else out of the way in international borrowing, so it's hurting other countries too. Eventually they must come up with a plan to fix the Big Problem and billions more will need to be spend. Once that is in place, then is the time to do necessary reforms.

I don't agree that capitalism has failed. I think massive corruption has allowed big business to indulge in exploitative practices that involve both political parties. Government's job is to oversee and setup protection from such things, not participate wholeheartedly IN the corruption, which our members of government have done. The excuse that they need the campaign contributions is not valid. They have betrayed us.

I think we mainly disagree on the order of the priorities!

reply to post by melatonin


He also campaigned on transparency but bills are being concocted behind closed doors and shoved through without examination (no member of congress could possibly have read the full stimulus bill before voting).

He campaigned on bi-partisanship, but that means at least talking over the contents of a blll. Inviting folks over to dinner or to a superbowl party is not bi-partisanship.

He said he would strip out earmarks but in the stimulus bill, he simply redefined the word by leaving out sponsor's names but many, many things were clearly targeted to specific districts and influential supporters. In the budget now under consideration there are thousands of earmarks from both parties, the exact opposite of what he said he would do.

Most Americans want new energy policies, revamped education and health care reform (see my post to Torsion girl) but obama must be presidential enough to recognize the biggest crisis facing us and deal with that before going on to more long term reforms. Do you really not mind that our pesident is off making speeches rather than working with his team to come up with a plan to fix the financial crisis?

Originally posted by earlywatcher
Most Americans want new energy policies, revamped education and health care reform (see my post to Torsion girl) but obama must be presidential enough to recognize the biggest crisis facing us and deal with that before going on to more long term reforms. Do you really not mind that our pesident is off making speeches rather than working with his team to come up with a plan to fix the financial crisis?

Not my president actually. Probably better than Brown, though.

OK, so in your opinion he hasn't lived up to some of his claims. And that's bad. Yet here he is living up to some of his claims. And that's bad as well.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't?

Perhaps he does have some grand plan developing for the financial crisis. Time will tell. He's only been there 6 weeks or so, and the economic problem blew up a few months back and he supported the last governments response. If he gives money to banks, he's a communist to some, if he doesn't respond right away in some kneejerk action, he's using sleight of hand and doing wrong.

I would think it would be wise to make an intelligent and well thought out move at this point. The UK has seen wad, after wad, after wad of dosh enter the banking system, interest rates fall to .5% or whatever, and now we're printing dosh. Yet still no real improvement. And so far you in the US have gone down a similar path.

Not sure what you expected in six weeks, lol. Not exactly a simple problem to solve over a pizza, beers, and a game of poker.

reply to post by melatonin


oops! sorry about that. there I go, assuming everyone in the discussion is american.

I know it's only been a short time, and I know it takes a lot longer, generally, to get things rolling. You clearly know a lot more about what my government is doing than I know about yours. sorry about that too I think I wouldn't be so impatient and intolerant of this administration if it weren't for this massive spending. I know governments all over the world waste money all the time, but this is so much, so fast, and I'm not at all sure it will have the desired consequence, let alone the resulting crippling debt and danger of hyperinflation.

It seems to me that if you really wanted to bring about a green energy revolution, you would figure out ways to invite a whole new generation of businesses to start up, not just pay for stuff from federal dollars. I know that he thinks he's doing this, but you don't accomplish these things without working and planning and dickering with the playes. Throwing money at it might pay for a few jobs but then that's the end of it. We need an industry, not a smattering. But that's just my opinion.

Health care is tricky with many very rich players, all of whom have powerful lobbyists. It's not going to be anything simple. I have no idea what things are now in place as of this initial spending bill, but again I think it's going to take a lot of dickering to get something workable.

For all our sakes, I hope these governments of ours get it together and come up with a plan to pull us back from the brink, though I suppose financial ruin is slightly preferable to nuclear winter, as we have worried about for decades.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
For all our sakes, I hope these governments of ours get it together and come up with a plan to pull us back from the brink, though I suppose financial ruin is slightly preferable to nuclear winter, as we have worried about for decades.

Well, who knows what he'll do? I don't - I would have little clue as to what is an appropriate action. But throwing money at the problem (banks) doesn't seem to have helped. Heh, maybe it has, just by averting their complete and utter failure, and it just looks like little has happened.

But, as I said, in the UK we're now printing money. Brown met with Obama just last week. Maybe that's what you'll do next...

Originally posted by sos37
Wow - a mainstream media outlet that's not Fox news is finally dissing Obama! Well, indirectly by stating the obvious, but still - it's a first step in the right direction.

And the Washington Post is correct. Where is Obama's plan to deal with the banking crisis? Is he giving up on it and instead focusing on issues he feels that he has a chance of affecting?

The OP is not an editorial by the Washington Post. It's a conservative columnist's (Krauthammer's) opinion. I thought we were not supposed to use blogs and columns as though they are actual news reporting.

And what do you think the stimulus is? Sorry, it didn't save the entire failing economy in a week or two--it's going to take some time to get out of this deep hole we're in--but you can hardly say Obama is doing "nothing." He is also, by the way, appointing people to Treasury and other related jobs that even the conservatives approve of.

His agendas for health care, energy and so forth are ALSO in the works. The man can walk and chew gum at the same time. I am personally amazed at the number and scope of the projects he has undertaken less than two months into his presidency.