Obama Speaks on First Quarter GDP

Update: Obama calls GDP growth an important milestone but "you're hired" is the only economic news anyone wants to hear.

Obama says that all resources have been dispatched to the oil spill. Dept. of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has 30 days to report back on his findings on the oil spill.

Update: It's 11:25 and someone just signaled that Obama would be up in 2 minutes. He's about an hour late this morning.

The economy grew at 3.2% in the first quarter. Obama will speak at 10:35 am eastern on that number.

The only other scheduled event for Obama today is a visit to James J. Rowley Training Center in Beltsville, Maryland at 12:45 pm. The center trains Secret Service. Tomorrow, Obama gives the commencement at the University of Michigan.

This is a live stream of Obama's GDP remarks:

Sorry Tea Party, Republicans, But the Economy is Getting Better

A Bloomberg national poll in March found that Americans, by an almost 2-to-1 margin, believe the economy has gotten worse rather than better during the past year. The Market begs to differ. While President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to a new low of 44 percent, according to a CBS News Poll, down five points from late March, the judgment of the financial indexes has turned resoundingly positive. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is up more than 74 percent from its recessionary low in March 2009. Corporate bonds have been rallying for a year. Commodity prices have surged. International currency markets have been bullish on the dollar for months, raising it by almost 10 percent since Nov. 25 against a basket of six major currencies. Housing prices have stabilized. Mortgage rates are low. "We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board," says Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak + Co., an institutional trading firm in New York. "If Obama was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the President."
Little more than a year ago, financial markets were in turmoil, major auto companies were on the verge of collapse and economists such as Paul Krugman were worried about the U.S. slumbering through a Japan-like Lost Decade. While no one would claim that all the pain is past or the danger gone, the economy is growing again, jumping to a 5.6 percent annualized growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2009 as businesses finally restocked their inventories. The consensus view now calls for 3 percent growth this year, significantly higher than the 2.1 percent estimate for 2010 that economists surveyed by Bloomberg News saw coming when Obama first moved into the Oval Office. Business Week

Obama Announces December Jobs Forum

Unemployment claims fell more than expected, more good news.

Joe Biden working on jobs:

Boxer Asks Paulson To Care

Sen. Barbara Boxer: If he can save the white-collar jobs, he can save the blue-collar jobs.

Obama Talks Business

obama appeared on "the closing bell" with business journalist maria bartiromo talking about small business, the economy and nafta and of course, one question on the famous pastor.

he made his position clear on nafta. he believes in free trade. he just wants to establish certain protections. i had been really confused on where he stood because of all the spin.

he's got a really good grasp of business and the economy. this man is widely underestimated, in my opinion, because he has the big picture understanding of how everything is interconnected.
the whole transcript is here.

BARTIROMO: Why potentially impact the one area of the economy that's actually doing very well, exports and trading, and opening up markets for American companies?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in trade and I've said it repeatedly. And, you know, I have voted for trade agreements. I voted for the Peru Trade Agreement, much to the chagrin or some people who objected about it. I voted for the Oman trade deal. It is true that I voted against CAFTA and I voted--and I am concerned about NAFTA because they don't have the environmental and labor protections written into this legislation that ensure some basic standards, make sure that child labor laws aren't being circumvented, making sure that you don't have forced labor. I think it is important in our dealings with China to make sure that we are tougher bargainers. My problem with our trade agreements right now is not that I feel we can't compete in the global economy. I think we've got the best workers on earth. I think the problem is is that we're not very good bargainers. We--our trade mentality dates back to the '60s and the early '70s when we were so dominant in the world economy that basically if people sent their goods into this country without reciprocity, it wasn't really going to have a dent on our economy. Well, the fact is China, Brazil, Korea, you know, they're not your dad's China, Brazil or Korea. They are now major competitors of ours. We should want real trade with them, but it's got to be on a reciprocal basis. And we should put some pressure on them to improve how they treat workers, to deal with issues of environmental standards, to deal with safety standards. And part of the problem that we've got right now in our trade agreements is that US companies may move over there, get out from under basic safety standards that are important to US consumers, then the goods get shipped back into the United States and suddenly we've got toys with lead paint on them.

That is not good for US consumers and I don't think it's good for business long term. But, you know, one notion I want to dispel is the notion that somehow I'm opposed to free trade. I think it is important for us to have a trade regime. And I think it's good that China and India are growing. Ultimately they may be markets of ours and, you know what, there's just a human element to wanting to see billions of people scratch their way out of poverty. That is in our long-term interest.

BARTIROMO: What happens if the Mexicans and Canadians say, `We don't want to renegotiate.' Do we go back to the policy in place before NAFTA?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, I think that, you know, let me have those conversations with the president and the prime minister and see if we can negotiate something that makes sense for all sides. I mean, keep in mind, Mexico has some of these similar problems, you know, some of the promises that were made about the improvements in the standard of living for Mexico. Workers have not been borne out as a consequence of NAFTA. Part of the problem we're having with immigration right now has to do with a much more efficient US agricultural and agrobusiness operations going into Mexico and decimating Mexican farmers. They have been displaced first to Mexico City and other urban areas, and increasingly they come into the United States.

And so, again, the principle that I have in general when it comes to economic policies: a belief in free markets, a belief in opportunity, a belief in trade, but wanting to make sure that in all these areas that somebody's thinking about the little guy; that somebody is making sure that the economy is working for everybody and not just some people. And that, I think, is a basic difference between myself and George Bush and increasingly, it appears, John McCain, as well.

BARTIROMO: But you want to put pressure on the companies and the people that are actually creating jobs, during a recession.

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, I think part of my argument is part of the reason we're in a recession is because we have an unbalanced economy. Look, you know, Henry Ford was the first one to say, `If I don't pay my workers enough to buy my cars, my business isn't going to be around for a long time.' Part of the genius of America has always been that we have a shared prosperity and a broad-based middle class, and that we make investments in roads and bridges and other infrastructure that allows the market to work efficiently. And we've got a regulatory system so that investors can trust the market and don't feel like insiders are going to be taking advantage of them. That's what makes the market run. And when we lose that balance, what ends up happening is in the short term you've got some people who make out like bandits. And the only reason that we haven't seen some of these problems in the US economy previously is because consumers had been driving this, even though their wages and incomes haven't been going up, because they've been able to use their credit cards and home equity lines as an ATM. That's gone away. And so the question now is who's going to drive the economy, if not consumers? And the only way that we can make sure that consumers are able to drive that economy is if in fact they've got some money in their pockets. And right now they don't, because they are getting squeezed hard.

on tax rate:

BARTIROMO: So what about the top marginal rate for ordinary income? Who ought to pay more and who should pay less?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less. For those folks, I want an offset on the payroll tax that would be worth as much as $1,000 for a family. Senior citizens who are bringing in less than $50,000 a year in income, I don't want them to have to pay income tax on their Social Security. And as part of my overall approach to housing, I actually want to provide an additional 10 percent mortgage deduction, a credit, mortgage interest credit, for those who currently don't itemize. Because if you live in a house that's pretty expensive, like I do, and I itemize, I get a pretty big break from Uncle Sam. If you own a $100,000 house and you're making 65, $75,000 a year, you're not getting that same deduction. I think that they deserve a break as well. That will actually help relieve some of the pressure on homeowners.

i'm not a wide-eyed liberal

BARTIROMO: Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put a further strain on people?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, look, there's no doubt that anything I do is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office. I'm going to be sworn in in January, we don't know what the economy's going to look like at that point. And, you know, the thing you can--you can be assured of is that I'm not going to making these decisions based on ideology. I'm not a dogmatist. I know that some, you know, my opponents to the right would like to paint me as this wooly-eyed, you know, liberal or wild-eyed...

BARTIROMO: You're not a liberal?

Sen. OBAMA: The--but my attitude is that I believe in the market, I believe in entrepreneurship, I believe in opportunity, I believe in capitalism and I want to do what works. But what I want to make sure of is it works for all America and not just a small sliver of America. And if it turns out--if somebody can make a persuasive argument to me that, you know what, what we need at this juncture, at this particular point in time is a different set of policies than some of the ones that I've proposed, I'm always going to listen to people. Because I think one of the problems, in fact, with the Bush administration has been its rigidness when it comes to economic policy. I mean, you ask them any question, they'll say tax cuts. It doesn't matter what the problem is, if it's, you know, our trade deficit: tax cuts. If it's, you know, slowdown in manufacturing: tax cuts. You know, at a certain point, you know, if you've only got one arrow in the quiver, then you're going to have problems.

there's plenty of government waste to cut

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about spending. You've got a $400-plus billion deficit. How do you plan to pay for the new health, education, you mentioned green technology, social programs...

Sen. OBAMA: Right.

BARTIROMO: ...in the middle of a recession?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, I tell you what...

BARTIROMO: Away from tax cuts?

Sen. OBAMA: Right. The two points I would make. Number one, as I said, I'm going to have to take a look at what revenues are coming in when I take office because, you know, I'm not ideological and I think it is very important for us to stick to a principle of pay as you go. If I'm going to cut taxes for the middle class, as I've proposed, that means that I've got to either end some tax breaks elsewhere or cut spending. And if I want to increase spending, then I've got to find offsetting revenues or cut programs that aren't working. That's a principle that I believe in strongly and I will run on and implement when I'm president.

What's interesting, though, is The Wall Street Journal, I think--actually a columnist looked, in The Wall Street Journal, at does Obama's policies in fact add up? Do the numbers add up? And the conclusion was, yes. Because not only have I called for an end to the war in Iraq, which would not provide all the money that's being spent there--some of that's going to have to go to resetting our military, dealing with veterans and so forth--but there will be some money that we can use for other things.

Number two is the rollback of the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 and 2 percent. That will in fact create additional revenue. And the third thing is the cap and trade system that I've proposed to deal with climate change and to increase energy independence. That potentially generates billions of dollars that we can reinvest in solar, wind, biodiesel, creating jobs here in America that can't be exported. And so when you tally it all up, all my proposals pay for themselves.

Now, as I said before, it could be that revenues are so short in a year's time that we've got to make some assessments. And I am not going to initiate programs that can't be paid for.

BARTIROMO: So name three spending programs you would cut to balance the budget.

Sen. OBAMA: Oh, you know, there are probably some weapons programs that I think are not serving our national security interests that need to be examined, and we've got to do an audit there. There are reforms that need to be made in our purchasing processes, where--simple things, you know. If we actually made sure that every government employee had a single, you know, debit card or credit card, then negotiated with large purchasers to get the discounts that any other large purchaser would get, we could lop off 10 percent of some of our major purchases by the federal government. Our travel allowances and expenses are a major problem. We could save several billion dollars just in how we set up government travel. So there are a whole bunch of areas where we can make some significant savings.

I will tell you, though, that historically when--you know, the fact is that the federal government primarily spends its money on Social Security, on Medicare and Medicaid, and on defense. And that's the bulk of our spending.

The biggest thing we've got to do is get control of our health care spending, and that's why the health care plan that I've proposed, although costing some money in the front end--we've got to help rural hospitals invest in, you know, health IT. We've got to make sure that we are bringing people into coverage so that they're not going to the emergency room. Short term, that will cost us some money. Long term, the more we emphasize prevention, the less likely we are to pay huge bills down the road. That's the only way we're going to get control of health care inflation. And if you talk to any executive, as well as any actuary who's looking at government spending, our biggest crisis looming in the horizon has to do with our health care costs. And the only way to really solve it long term is to make sure that we are making for a healthier America and improving the quality of care so that we get more bang for our health care dollar.

Let's Get Back to the Issues

tony blankley makes a solid argument for the candidates to tell us--in detail--how they're going to solve this ecomomic doozie we're in.
rcp:
....But if anything, we are situated even more dangerously. As Paul Krugman has argued in recent columns (ignore his political rhetoric, but his economic analysis sometimes can be persuasive and chilling), financial contagion increases the magnitude of the danger: "Troubles that began a little over a year ago in an obscure corner of the financial system, BBB-minus subprime-mortgage-backed securities, have spread to corporate bonds, auto loans, credit cards and now -- the latest casualty -- student loans."

Current informed commentaries throughout the financial world are loaded with warnings. Krugman wrote that JPMorgan Chase last week "described what's happening as a 'systematic margin call,' in which the whole financial system is facing demands to come up with cash it doesn't have."

We also are experiencing a historic reduction in the value of the dollar. When a banking crisis and a currency crisis occur at the same time, as they are now, they likely are to be followed by a recession, and the recession is likely to be longer and deeper.

And unlike the Japanese crisis of the 1990s, America's dominant place in the world economy increases the likely worldwide effect of our crisis and recession. For example, the subprime mortgage crisis has been exported to the world already because the world has bought those assets, but the world never bought much Japanese real estate mortgage assets in the '80s and '90s. Further adding to the high risk of economic contraction, of course, is the sharp and continuing rise in oil prices.

Of course, we may get lucky. Perhaps the financial institutions will weather the current storm. Perhaps the dollar will bottom out soon. Perhaps the economy will slow down but not contract. But so far, the Fed's repeated interventions have not solved the lack of liquidity. So far, the markets around the world are betting against good news. And there is talk that the massive Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac real estate corporations may have liquidity problems.

So with all this warning, we should expect the presidential candidates to explain in detail how they would deal with this crisis. After all, in 10 months, one of them -- either McCain, Obama or Clinton -- will be president and quite likely will be facing one of the worst financial and economic conditions of recent decades. Instead, we get yet more discussion on who is for hope, who has experience, and who is better able to answer the phone at 3 a.m.

Why not have a novel three-way debate on one of the networks for two hours and see what the three great minds who would be president have to say about what they would do if the likely turns out to happen? I don't have an answer, but I have the first question for them. read more.

Clinton’s Deliberate Race Baiting
Who Can Beat McCain?

Obama: the Un-Beholden President
Bogus Big States Argument
Obama’s Pennsylvania Strategy
It’s Still Over for Clinton
Obama Widely Underestimated

Obama Responds to Bush on Economy

bush says we're not in a recession, that it's just slow out here. recession, slowdown, whatever you call it, it's bad for normal people. heck, bush didn't even hear the news about the possible $4 a gallon gas for spring. he's more concerned about his spying bill.

obama:"We are not standing on the brink of recession because of forces beyond our control," Obama told a town hall forum in Austin. "This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership in Washington — a Washington where George Bush hands out billions of tax cuts to the wealthiest few for eight long years, and John McCain promises to make those same tax cuts permanent, embracing the central principle of the Bush economic program."

here's what else obama had to say:

AUSTIN, Texas - Democratic candidate Barack Obama said Thursday the economy is "on the brink of a recession" and blamed economic policies espoused by President Bush and Republican presidential contender John McCain.

Obama mocked a more optimistic economic picture painted by Bush at a White House news conference just moments earlier: "People are struggling in the midst of an economy that George Bush says is not a recession but is experienced differently by folks on the ground."

For the second day in a row, Obama focused on the likely GOP nominee McCain and all but ignored Hillary Rodham Clinton's continuing campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, although key Democratic primaries come up next Tuesday in Texas and Ohio. read rest msnbc

Don't Spend Your Tax Refund!

isn't it odd that americans have negative savings and yet it's up to us to boost the economy? what kind of economy is that? we're being given money so we can spend it? that makes no sense.
save it! pay off your debts!