RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

That’s 2 for the Obama “Go Shopping” economic plan * Open Thread

By LisaB on October 10, 2008 at 5:45 AM in Current Affairs

Yesterday, in a news roundup piece, I mentioned an article at WaPo:

9) The WaPo has another scary economic story. Holiday season approaches, and retailers are scared.

“I don’t think anyone predicted a crisis of this magnitude that couldn’t be fixed quickly,” said Bob Carbonell, chief credit officer for Bernard Sands, a retail rating and credit services agency. “If the American housewife puts the money under the mattress, we’re in deep trouble.”

It’s an interesting early look at retailers’ concerns about the holiday season, which accounts for about 20% of sales. Why do I include it here? Because, if Obama is elected, look for him to switch gears from economic fear mongering and suggest Americans go shopping. Retailers need not worry, since Obama will begin to heal the economy, so buy that plasma tv, y’all.

Read the rest ->

UPDATE: Thanks to an alert NQ reader (Stefan in De), I was directed to another writer who had a similar idea. Posted at Rasmussen today:

Two important questions were asked at Tuesday night’s presidential debate.

Fiora from Chicago asked: “What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we’re now in?”

Teresa Finch asked: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this global economic crisis?”

Both questions touched on the new political post-bailout reality: That is, White House hopefuls may promise Americans more government for lower taxes, but the next president is going to have to tell his party and American voters that they can’t keep enjoying something for nothing.
————
In answer to the question on sacrifice, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama berated President Bush for telling Americans, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, not how they must sacrifice, but instead to go out and shop. Then Obama failed to cite a single sacrifice he would suggest.

This is the closest Obama came to proposing that Americans give up anything: “There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.” He would not say that people actually need to cut back on their energy use, by, say, carpooling or taking transit. Nothing real.

Obama basically told Fiora: Go out and shop.

For his part, GOP presidential nominee John McCain did make it clear that Americans would have to sacrifice “some really good projects,” as he would eliminate earmark spending, and not just for extravagant or wasteful pet-spending projects. Also, McCain proposed an across-the-board spending freeze on federal spending — exempting defense, veterans affairs and some other federal expenses. McCain did tell voters that they would have to give up something — not just think about it.
————-

Now I expect Obama to agree with many Democratic policies — but if he cannot say where he would control spending in the Democratic-led House and the Senate, hold onto your wallets, folks. The Senate could not approve a $700 billion bailout bill to save the U.S. economy without larding it with an additional $110 billion in money the government does not have.

And here I thought I was going out on a limb with this, or at least being VERY flippant. Given how our economy works, I think telling consumers to “go spend” during the holiday season by a not-quite-president who wants to look in charge already is not unexpected. That’s how I was thinking of this. However, the Rasmussen writer got the same vibe from Obama’s debate answer.

  • Monan

    Why Obama’s Communist Connections Are Not Headlines

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_communist_connectio.html

    • Tuppence 411

      From the article linked: America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, “creeping socialism”, class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.

      IMHO- McCain needs to educate. McCain needs to connect the dots. Hammering on Ayers or Wright or voter and finance fraud won’t work unless it connects to the larger picture- Obama is dangerous. Obama is gathering dissent and anxiety like a tornado and will use it to push this country off its foundation. Connect the dots for people McCain. Draw voters a map if you have to. Time is running out!

    • Kristen

      This is a REALLY interesting article. Thanks for the link. I too am so frustrated people don’t seem to care about his questionable connections. It really put things in a new light for me. Everyone should be EDUCATED in history and what communism really is. And it is apparent it no longer is taught in schools. What a disservice to our youth.

    • Docelder

      This brings a good point. McCain needs to speak to younger in terms they understand. The don’t know communism is evil. We don’t have time to educate them… our education system having already failed. They do know through watching MTV about the Berlin wall. Compare socialism as a gateway to a “Berlin wall”. We need powerful imagery of our own to compete with the imagery of Obama as a “hopey-changey” agent of world enlightenment. Instead leave this message “Obama = Berlin wall”.

  • Tuppence 411

    Oblahblah telling me to go shop is the least of my fears. We are in turmoil, the foundations on which this country was founded and which have guided us for 232 years –Democratic represention in a Constitutional Republic with a captialist economy– are being shaken. We may very well be at a crossroads. I don’t want Socialist, Manchurian Canidate Barky Soretoes with his radical associates anywhere near the helm as we navigate as a country thru these storms. He is dangerous.

    • ss396

      And furthermore, I’ll make my own d__n shopping decisions, thank you very much. I don’t need some government airhole telling me what to do with the little bit of money that they have not yet confiscated from me.

    • PamFlorida

      Didn’t Obama say in the last debate that people need to conserve energy (duh-we have no choice), and my favorite, you won’t be able to eat out as often. My family hasn’t been out to dinner for over a year. We have no car payments or credit debt of any kind except for our mortgage of $130,000. Our only discretionary spending is cable tv, internet service and a cell phone family plan with shared minutes. How much more can we cut spending?

  • joseyJ

    Emails from Obama’s senate account to Odinga in Dec. 2006 —
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77508

    In 2004, Kerry was criticized by the media and press for saying he’d talked with foreign leaders and they wanted HIM to be president.
    But Obama had direct contact with his cousin, Odinga, who was running for president in Kenya – and it’s OK. I remember during the NH primary, the Obama campaign made a big deal about a phone call to his cousin – just before the election there.
    Read: Obama will be the Messiah of the World – and bring all nations together.

    • Mary

      Obama’s Global Poverty Act will give the money Americans no longer have, to “poor” people all over the world, and he’ll do it through the United Nations.

      If Obama owns the White House, and the Democratic Party of Pelosi/Reid owns the House and the Senate, there will BE no control or veto power over their “I’d like to buy the world a Coke” ideology.

      Name me ONE program Obama had the guts to admit at the debate, that he would have to cut from his agenda, due to the financial crisis.

      He couldn’t do it.

      • joseyJ

        Very true. And since McCain didn’t specifically cite Medicare and SS as “spending” bills he would cut – Obamabots are spreading a rumor that he’ll cut those.
        But iirc those programs are not related to spending in the context used.

      • Docelder

        Remember when that 800 billion for global poverty was “chump change” to us? What something like just 0.7% of our GNP. No big deal right? Then why is the 800 billion rescue package a disaster we will leave o the generations? The media is being complicit in perpetuating rhetoric.

      • Bellevue_NW_Voter The Renter

        Name me ONE program Obama had the guts to admit at the debate, that he would have to cut from his agenda, due to the financial crisis.

        He couldn’t do it.

        I thought that was pretty significant. And yes, my reaction was the same: the coward voted present and avoided taking a stand that might alienate someone… AGAIN.

        And BTW, I do believe McCain said we’d have to make some sacrifices around Social Security benefits. I immediately the ‘pubs I’m in contact with to tell them that that is a really bad thing to be saying to folks my age, whose retirement planning factored in the existence of social security and who (sorry to bring this up again, folks) RENT due to not having enough money to buy a home at today’s prices, with a responsible mortgage, which means that I won’t have a home to reverse-mortgage later.

  • Linda C.

    You can kick all of “their promises” out the window. If that wasn’t evident at least 3 months ago, me thinks that one might have been living under a rock somewhere.

    The harsh reality is that the goof balls are still debating whether or not we are in a “recession”. We have passed that discussion a long time ago. We have not even gotten past the tip of the iceberg yet. In this country, the problem is no manufacturing and a economy based on consumption fueled solely on debt. The credit card debt problem still has not been addressed. It continues to bubble underneath the mortgage meltdown. This is the ugly reality that no politician wants to discuss and bring to the light of day.

    Every politician and high roller wanted to believe their own BS. It didn’t take a rocket scientist for anyone to take a look out the window and see the reality on the ground.

    • Dan

      I agree with you 100% that as a nation, we have become addicted to debt. It is a fundemantal problem that must be addressed or it will ultimately be our ruin.

  • BernieO

    This is completely off topic, but Obama is running an ad here in NC bragging about, among other things, how his mother got him up at 4:30 in the morning to make him study. I have heard this before and each time I keep thinking REALLY? What parent would do that to a child? Why not do it in the evening? Out getting food stamps? But to wake a child up that early and deprive him of much needed sleep? Obama is either lying or his mother was really off the wall (entirely possible). But the fact that he presents this as a good thing says something about his idea of normality. I wish someone would ask him if he would do this to his kids.

    Am I the only one who finds this bizarre?

    • bemused

      I’ll go with lying, although I could believe getting up early in the tropics (Indonesia) when it’s coolest. I could also believe Ann trying to cram something in this do-nothing’s head at the last minute before he headed off to school.

    • Mary

      For a man who wasn’t even present when his mother was dying,

      Obama sure uses her for political purposes, doesn’t he?

      I find it deeply offensive.

      If he had any character at all, Obama would have titled his book “Dreams my MOTHER taught me I could achieve.”

      Dreams of his father? All delusional. The man deserted him, and died an unemployed alcoholic, with wives and children strewn all over the landscape.

      His MOTHER gave him his dreams.

      And yet, he was “too busy” to be at her deathbed.

      I’m not impressed.

    • countryfirst_obamanever

      Did she wake him up to study or pray to Allah?

    • Monet

      Supposedly, Ann Stanley woke Senator Obama up early in Indonesia because she wasn’t happy with the school system and to continue his English studies.

      Ann Stanley appears to have a strong conviction that education was a priority. Most college freshmen who discovered they were pregnant in 1961 didn’t finish their degrees or enroll in a new university months after the birth of their child. His mother did manage to finish her degree before they moved to Indonesia and somehow picked up a masters and ph.d while spending good part of her adult life outside of the United States.

      Considering her pursuit of higher education, it doesn’t surprise me that she put an effort into supplementing her son’s education.

  • hootnannie

    The very possibility of an Obama Presidency is going to keep Wall Street shaky. All this nonsense about the people turning against the incumbent party sounds like balderdash to me when you consider that the rep of the out party is a far-left liar who can’t be pinned down as to his backers or true agenda and, to all appearances, is someone whose associates are invariably bad sorts. It doesn’t even matter whether Bobo has good ideas about the economy or not. He can’t be trusted, and investors will continue to feel panicked. Of course, few commentators will talk about all this because of fear of being labeled a racist.

  • http://mybluecountry.googlepages.com/whattheobamademocratsaresayingposter Linda

    Uh yes, they’re seeing the trappings set by Fannie Mae, Freddie and the Democrats. Socialism and that’s why the markets are crashing.

  • Sassy

    Our economy is so mired down, that we will be insolvent for 20 years or more, in my opinion.

    And who is riding to the rescue? Obama?
    Please!

    We expect economic expertise from a novice, organizer, and an enforcer…not I!

    • C.S.

      I’m a little harsher in my judgment; an “organizer” who was so unsuccessful that he couldn’t get a slumlord to give his tenets heat during a Chicago winter and yet there are still voters out there who thinks he can fix a depression?

  • typewriterstreaming

    Trust Obama who couldn’t even make sure the heat was kept on for Christams in the Rezko slums he gave his pal to run? Obama’s incompetence kept his district a disgraceful ghetto. Imagine 4 years of Obama with Democrats holding a veto proof majority. There is going to be major, major anger when Americans figure out they were bamboozeled.

  • katmandu

    Ah, an open thread. I’m happy this morning about the CT Supreme Court decision giving gays in that state the right to marry.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage

    I know many will disagree with my opinion that this is a good decision. But that is what democracy is all about — and that’s why even if you disapprove of gays marrying, you should be pleased that minorities are accorded basic rights by the court.

  • Kwaayesnama

    I enjoyed watching Michelle Obama on Larry King the other night. What an intelligent, articulate first lady she will be. Sadly the same day Cindy McCain opened her mouth and her lack of class was evident.

  • Mary

    That’s the point, Perry: Obama is no different.

    Frankly, a Democrat in the WH and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress is much more frightening in terms of government spending, than a Democratic-controlled Congress with a Republican in the WH who DOES want to cut out pork and over-spending. That Republican will veto such pork-stuffed bills; the Democrat will not.

    THOSE are our choices this year.

    Bottom line.

  • BernieO

    Republicans are already spinning like mad to put the blame for the meltdown on the Democrats and too much regulation. (Even though Fannie and Freddie contributed to the mess they were not the root cause. Jack Welch, hardly a Democrat, said this yesterday. While he admits Fannie and Freddie contributed he put the blame squarely on the commercial financial institutions.) Dems, as usual, are letting the Republicans get control of the debate and frame the issue. What a bunch of wusses.

    As for Obama, how weird is it that McCain is proposing bailing out homeowners and Obama is saying it’s too expensive, even though he supported the bailout of AIG, and other big money institutions?

    Obama complains that McCain wants to pay the full market value for homes, which is too expensive. But paying what they are worth now would further crash the housing market and deepen our problems. Right now home values are artificially low. If the government steps in like Hillary and McCain want and pays reasonable amounts (gauged on a longer view of home values than just this month) the government can stabilize the housing industry like FDR did. They should be able to make money when the markets eventually stabilize, like FDR did. Obama first said this wasn’t needed because the bailout will have the government help homeowners, when in fact, it only allows for it, but does not require it.

    If we do nothing to help homeowners who can afford a mortgage with reasonable terms (which McCain is requiring – along with a downpayment) there are many, many more mortgages that are set to bump up in the coming months and we will have even more defaults. This is wrecking many communities which are seeing neighborhoods destroyed by this.

    Obama so far has only supported helping those at the top. Which brings me back to the question of what he really stands for. This is more of a fat cat stance a la Goolsbee than a left wing approach a la Ayers. There is just no way to get a handle on who Obama really is. I have a feeling he doesn’t know.

  • Dan

    You’re totally off base here, Perry. We’re in this mess largely because Republican policies were NOT followed in the 6 years that the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Republicans believe in lower taxes but also in spending restraint. Thanks to the blithering idiot that we’ve had in the White House during that time, spending has gone through the roof. He has used his presidential veto a grand total of two times, I believe, both of which were to veto federal funding for stem cell research.

    As for the housing bubble itself and the associated meltdown in the financial markets that we’re seeing now, don’t you dare try to blame it on the Republicans. For the most part, it has been the Democrats who insisted on making vast sums of money available to people with little or no capacity to service those loans, who were successful in getting government backing for those loans, and who protected institutions like Freddie Mac from calls for more stringent regulation in return for gobs of campaign cash. Granted, the moron in the White House, as usual, sat there with his thumb up his ass and did nothing to stop it. But the Democrats have far more dirt on their hands with regard to the housing bubble than the Republicans do.

    Of course, the typical clueless American voter doesn’t understand that, and this financial crisis that was largely of the Democrats’ own making is going to quite likely wind up electing one of their own as president.

  • C.S.

    We do know that Democrats had two years to use majority clout on Republicans and immediately took “impeachment off the table” and then threw their hands up at every Bush ultimatum and said they really couldn’t stop him. We have to face the facts that the guardians of the country – both Republicans and Democrats blew it. And only their cooperation, since they are still the ones running Our Country, will begin to get us out of this mess.

    Like the Great Depression, it won’t be easy and it won’t be quick but I would like to see some of that sacrifice start at the top and work its way down to us “peasants” for a change. McCain is not only expressing his willingness to try but has given us a plan (freeze on spending). And I don’t care if he borrows from FDR’s creative file if he needs to.

    But Soertoro/Obama is still stuck in campaign mode, dithering over which speech will get him the most votes. When you’re drowning it doesn’t hurt to hope you won’t but you have a better chance of surviving if you latch onto anything that floats by that can keep you from sinking.

  • joseyJ

    >>>>>Frankly, a Democrat in the WH and Democrats controlling both houses of Congress is much more frightening in terms of government spending, than a Democratic-controlled Congress with a Republican in the WH who DOES want to cut out pork and over-spending. That Republican will veto such pork-stuffed bills; the Democrat will not.

    Your comment should be spread widely – especially considering Obama has NEVER stood up to the Dems.

  • Mary

    Let’s clarify what Obama is saying, Bernie:

    He says the homeowners’ help is already in the bill.

    But the bill’s legislative language says banks MAY help homeowners re-figure mortgages, not SHALL.

    What Obama is supporting is that banks can help if they want, but they don’t have to, and can pick and choose as they please.

    Obama’s claim that it’s already in the bill is a COPOUT.

    He’s for his banking buddies, and so is his vice-presidential nominee, Senator Credit-Card-Companies-Bankruptcy-Bill Joe Biden.

    Obama has offered NO ideas for helping homeowners keep their homes. NONE

  • Mary

    Let’s clarify what Obama is saying, Bernie:

    He says the homeowners’ help is already in the bill.

    But the bill’s legislative language says banks MAY help homeowners re-figure mortgages, not SHALL.

    What Obama is supporting is that banks can help if they want, but they don’t have to, and can pick and choose as they please.

    Obama’s claim that it’s already in the bill is a COPOUT.

    He’s for his banking buddies, and so is his vice-presidential nominee, Senator Credit-Card-Companies-Bankruptcy-Bill Joe Biden.

    Obama has offered NO ideas for helping homeowners keep their homes. NONE

  • red_sleeves

    Bernie,

    The Republicans are not saying there was too much regulation… In fact, it is quite the opposite.

    This may be the source of your confusion: Ideally, from the conservative perspective, divorce the government from Fannie and Freddie altogether or, as a compromise, ensure strict oversight. Since the first wasn’t going to happen, several Republicans have pushed for the second, including Mr. McCain.