Obama’s Economic View Is Rejected On World Stage

SEOUL — President Obama’s hopes of emerging from his Asia trip with the twin victories of a free trade agreement with South Korea and a unified approach to spurring global economic growth ran into resistance on all fronts yesterday, putting Obama at odds with his key allies and largest trading partners.

The most concrete trophy expected to emerge from the trip eluded his grasp: a long-delayed free trade agreement with South Korea, first negotiated by the Bush administration and then reopened by Obama, to have greater protections for US workers.

And as officials frenetically tried to paper over differences among the Group of 20 members with a vaguely worded communiqué to be issued today, there was no way to avoid discussion of the fundamental differences of economic strategy. After five largely harmonious meetings in the past two years to deal with the most severe downturn since the Depression, major disputes broke out between Washington and China, Britain, Germany, and Brazil.

Each rejected core elements of Obama’s strategy of stimulating growth before focusing on deficit reduction. Several major nations continued to accuse the Federal Reserve of deliberately devaluing the dollar last week in an effort to put the costs of America’s competitive troubles on trading partners, rather than taking politically tough measures to rein in spending at home.

The result was that Obama repeatedly found himself on the defensive. He and the South Korean president, Lee Myung Bak, had vowed to complete the trade pact by the time they met here; while Obama insisted that it would be resolved “in a matter of weeks,’’ without the pressure of a summit meeting it was unclear how the hurdles on nontariff barriers to US cars and beef would be resolved.

Obama’s meeting with China’s president, Hu Jintao, appeared to do little to break down Chinese resistance to accepting even nonbinding numerical targets for limiting China’s trade surplus. While Lael Brainard, the undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, said that the United States and China “have gotten to a good place’’ on rebalancing their trade, Chinese officials later archly reminded the Americans that as the issuers of the dollar, the main global reserve currency, they should consider the interests of the “global economy’’ and their own “national circumstances.’’

The disputes were not limited to America’s foreign partners. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner got into a trans-Pacific argument with one of his former mentors, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, after Greenspan wrote that the United States was “pursuing a policy of currency weakening.’’ Geithner shot back on CNBC that while he had “enormous respect’’ for Greenspan, “that’s not an accurate description of either the Fed’s policies or our policies.’’

Much of the rest of the world seemed to share Greenspan’s assessment. Moreover, Obama seemed to be losing the broader debate over austerity. The president has insisted that at a moment of weak private demand, the best way to spur economic growth is to have the government prime the pump with cheap credit and government stimulus programs. He quickly found himself in an argument with Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.

“You do hear the argument made sometimes: If you have a deficit, put off the action to deal with it because taking money out of the economy will reduce your growth rate,’’ Cameron said at the meeting. “I simply don’t accept that.’’

Merkel, in a more traditional German view reflective of her country’s history of hyperinflation before World War II, was equally adamant.

“I am not one, and Germany is not one, who says growth and fiscal consolidation are contradictory,’’ she said during a lunchtime address in Seoul. “They can go together, and it is essential to return to a sustainable growth path.’’ She also suggested that it was the job of deficit countries — like the United States and Britain, although she diplomatically avoided citing them — to increase their competitiveness rather than put limits on countries that had figured out how to get the world to buy their goods. (source)

Pelosi: ‘We Didn’t Lose Because of Me’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the “overwhelming support” of fellow Democrats in her bid to become minority leader in the next Congress, and says she’s not to blame for the Democrats’ mid-term debacle.

“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning. “Our members do not accept that.”

Instead, the California Democrat attributes the loss of at least 60 seats to high unemployment and “$100 million of outside, unidentified funding.”

“Any party that cannot turn (9.5% unemployment) into political gains should hang up the gloves,” she said.

The NPR interview is one of the first Ms. Pelosi has granted since a small-but-growing number of Democrats began publicly lamenting her decision to seek the top job in the minority. That list even includes some loyal allies, such as Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan.

Among those rooting for Ms. Pelosi to stick around are Republicans, who are giddy at the prospect of reprising in 2012 the attacks they used in the past election cycle, tying Democratic incumbents around the country to the liberal from San Francisco.

Ms. Pelosi’s reply: Bring it on. “The reason they had to take me down is because I’ve been effective in fighting special interests in Washington, D.C.,” Ms. Pelosi said, citing the health insurance and financial services industries. “I’m effective. They had to take me out. I’m also the most significant attractor to support for the Democrats.”

“So, I’m not looking back on this,” Ms. Pelosi said. “They asked me to run, I’m running. We don’t let the Republicans choose our leaders, and again, our members understand, they made me a target because I’m effective, politically and policy-wise.”(source)

Pelosi Will Seek To Stay As House Dem Leader

WASHINGTON – Nancy Pelosi, the nation's first female House speaker, said Friday she will try to keep her spot as leader of the House Democrats despite huge election losses that cost her party the majority.

Pelosi, a California liberal, rejected pressure from moderate House Democrats — and even some liberal allies — who said the widespread defeats cried out for new party leadership.

Pelosi, 70, will seek her colleagues' support to become House minority leader when the new Congress convenes in January. That would keep her atop the Democratic House caucus, which will number about 190 people next year. But it would mark a big drop from being speaker, which carries tremendous power to influence legislation and is second only to the vice president in the line of presidential succession.

House members elect their respective party leaders, although the entire House elects the speaker. That post is almost certain to go Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, the current minority leader.

"Our work is far from finished," Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues. "As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back."

Pelosi said many colleagues "have called with their recommendations on how to continue our fight for the middle class, and have encouraged me to run for House Democratic Leader."

Dozens of Republican House candidates attacked their Democratic opponents by tying them to Pelosi and suggesting they would do whatever the San Francisco liberal asked.

Several Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts vowed to oppose Pelosi as speaker, but some of them lost all the same.

One who did survive, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, had said he might challenge Pelosi because the party needs a more moderate leader. Shuler noted that he lost his job as Washington Redskins quarterback in 1997 after the team performed poorly.

As the magnitude of Tuesday's election losses sunk in, even some longtime supporters of Pelosi said she needed to step aside as the party leader.

"As good a leader as she has been, I don't think she's the right leader to take us forward," Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., told WHAS-TV in Louisville on Thursday. He said Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who has ranked second to Pelosi for years, would be "a perfect spokesman for the Democratic Party in the House."

Hoyer is more centrist than Pelosi, and the two have long had a cordial but somewhat wary relationship.

Hoyer might retain his second-ranking status, which would make him the new minority whip. But it's possible that liberals will try to oust him from the shrunken leadership ladder to prevent fellow liberals from being demoted. (source)

Barry As President: When Your Ego Is So Large That You Can't Admit Defeat (The Misreading Of The Midterm 2010 Elections)

NEW YORK (CBS) — After suffering a “shellacking” in the midterm elections, President Obama acknowledges what many have seen as his chief weakness – failing to sell the importance of several legislative milestones to the American people.

“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Republicans enjoyed significant victories Tuesday, wresting control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats and picking up six seats in the Senate, as frustration over the economy drove voter sentiment.

A humbled Mr. Obama, who termed the defeat a “shellacking” during a postelection press conference Wednesday, must now grapple with an emboldened and empowered political enemy with its sights set on undoing much of what he accomplished in the last two years – including an effort to repeal his signature achievement, health care reform, reports CBS News White House correspondent Bill Plante. (source)

Barry In Charge: Why A Boy Can't Be Given Leadership ("That wasn't me")

Poor little Barry.

100 days into office, and he still hasn't grown a pair. This petulant child is still running around claiming that anything bad that happens isn't my fault, and everything good that happens is because of me.

But that's not how a man leads. Real leaders take responsibility for what has happened while in congress, while president, and in everyday situations around the house. This man-boy hasn't learned that lesson, and it is painfully obvious to those of us who have already learned that lesson.

Watch here as Barry acts like he wasn't a sitting Senator when President Bush was given a TARP package to pass by congress last fall:



I guess we need to call in Barry's "Truth Squad" to sort it all out: was Barry in congress for two years before becoming president or not?:


Later in the day after this first clip, Barry delivers his own report card after 100 days in office to a Washington press corps. And if you watch here [fast forward to 8:30], you'll see Barry remember that he was indeed part of the senate when there is something good for which to take credit:



It's all pretty sophomoric, isn't it? How did we end up with this child as the leader of the free world?

Well, I'm not the only one who sees it. Millions of Americans are raising their voices through so far peaceful means, and now, finally, we see the press begin to notice, as well:

WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

___

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

___

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate — for a total of 12.4 percent — on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

___

OBAMA: "My hope is that working in a bipartisan fashion we are going to be able to get a health care reform bill on my desk before the end of the year that we'll start seeing in the kinds of investments that will make everybody healthier."

THE FACTS: Obama has indeed expressed hope for a health care plan that has support from Democrats and Republicans. But his Democratic allies in Congress have just made that harder. The budget plan written by the Democrats gives them the option of denying Republicans the normal right to block health care with a Senate filibuster. The filibuster tactic requires 60 votes to overcome, making it the GOP's main weapon to ensure a bipartisan outcome. The rules set by the budget mean that majority Democrats could potentially pass health care legislation without any Republican votes, sacrificing bipartisanship to achieve their goals. (source)

Barry In Charge: His Definition of Being A "Unifier" (mocking the Tea Partier's)

There are real people around the world who work to harm America: Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Medvedev/Putin, etc...but do you ever hear Barry speak of them in the same way he does half of his country? Listen to the way he speaks of us Tea Partier's who, in one day, asssembled peacefully to nearly 1 million in size across America to protest runaway spending and the growth of the federal government:



To those of you who have cared enough about your country to actually read the news over the years, I know that I don't need to tell you this...but to the truly ignorant out there who think that Barry is making a good argument in this clip, I offer this bit of education: he's LYING in order to shut out my half of this great country, and usher in SOCIALISM.

We aren't in this situation because of tax cuts for the rich. We are in this situation because the federal government regulated banks to give out BAD LOANS over ten years ago, then grew Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [both government-owned/run institutions] to enormous sizes in order to purchase all of these toxic loans.

Barry lies in order to foist his socialist "answer" to a problem that he and the rest of his Democrat leftists dreamed up during the Clinton administration. President Bush tried to curtail the growing crisis, but not only is there precious little a president can do in the way of single-handedly correcting this problem, but too many of you idiots who love CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the MSM followed down the path of demonizing Bush even though his management of the economy at least kept us at 3% GDP growth for 8 years, despite a dot.com bust and 9/11 attack on our economy that he inherited.

I know that for many of you, your hate is too blinding to believe my words. So try reading one of your own swishy leftists lay it all out for you here, in the Village Voice.

Barry In Charge: His Dixie Chicks Moment

Poor Barry. He tries so hard to sound eloquent, but fails. He fails like a public school student fails when he writes a paper on European history for the past 100 years and doesn't even mention fascism, communism, and despotism.

The errant high school student is only regurgitating what the public school teachers have indoctrinated into him, which is usually a one-sided view of history. The Howard Zinn version. You know that version, don't you? If you haven't been to college, you probably never heard the name, but you definitely received the brainwashing that comes from it: America's history is a story of enslavement and defiling of the planet, it's cultures, and its prosperity.

It's that simple, you see. Whenever you're speaking about ANY other culture, just blame America first for its shortcomings. If it's the Native Americans, the Asians, the Middle East, Africans, etc, it's all one tidy answer: America is to blame.

"Blame for what", you may ask. But that betrays your bias, my friend. For you to even ASK what we are to blame for exposes your boorish lack of sophistication and elucidation like our good, honest, citizens of America, such as Barry.

See, Barry doesn't have to provide any context for what he means. No details are necessary when you're in another country talking bad about America. The brainwashed drones in the audience just sit there, transfixed on his visage, mesmerized beyond rational thought or care. "America has been arrogant", he preaches.

"Yes, America has been arrogant" they chant silently in their minds.

Just as there were no free thinkers allowed in the re-education camps of Southeast Asia under Ho Chi Min, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, there are no questions allowed of this historic truth-teller named Obama. Just mouth the words, and you won't be singled out, as the poor folks who were unlucky enough to wear eyeglasses under the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror found out after we left Vietnam.

But I am too old at this point to worry about being singled out. I'll bite: just what are we Americans guilty of when it comes to arrogance towards Europe?

When my uncle was a POW of the Germans after being caught in the Battle Of The Bulge, what arrogance did he show? The only arrogance I know of was the draft board of Riner, Va, in the 40's when they defied the American system of not drafting the last male in a family for any war. He, indeed, was the last male in my family at the time, but the arrogance of the Riner citizens who made up that board was on display when they forced his name into the pool of draftees.

The fact that he was the last son to work their family farm back then was of little consequence.

But Europe benefited dramatically when my uncle, and hundreds of thousands of country farm boys (overwhelmingly white) were forced to go to their deaths for a European continent that didn't have enough fight left in their souls. They were saved from Germany twice in the past century, but you'd have to be a self-educated person who seeks the truth to know it in our glorious public school system today.

American academians have succeeded in erasing our history. They don't teach it, and our citizens don't care to read about it anymore. Years go by, young skulls full of mush grow up to be adult skulls full of mush, and voila': America gets the president it deserves! A typical sycophant who blames America first.

Here's Charles Krauthammer's succinct reading of the latest tragedy that Barry has performed against this great nation: