People blaming economy on Obama... R U SERIOUS

[nostrandave68]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorg3

Originally Posted by NostrandAve68

Here's the Republican's solution to solving the economic crisis

Don't do anything let the market fix themselves - so even though people don't have money to invest because they are getting pay cuts, losing their jobs and losing faith in the financial structure aswell as cutting back on their spending to pay off outstanding debt.... SOMEHOW demand will come out of nowhere and suddenly Americans will start investing more, its the biggest farce i've ever heard

How does one invest when there is no money to invest

simple law of demand buddy, prices go down, people spend more. its just a cycle, or would you rather have the government artificially inflate prices and create investment which would have never been worth the risk in the first place?

anyways whats wrong with paying off debt? let people build their equity up so we have a stronger foundation.

We are currently in a deflationary period meaning prices are actually dropping and still people are spending less sir.... this isn't simplesupply and demand. Never said nothing was wrong with paying off debt i was stating people don't have the money to invest because their saving more and alsotrying to pay off outstanding debt so no matter how low the government lowers capital gain rate it won't do much for investment

 

[jstar25]

Originally Posted by JStar25

I spoke to my wife yesterday and everyone under her command are pissed off right now that no actual dates were stated on the manifest.

Um I suppose they were happier looking down a tunnel with no light at the end?

Believe me I been "over there" and knowing that there is an actual plan is better than believing you are NEVER leaving.

True that but what if the man actually shook someone's hand and pledge to them they will go home soon and 2 months goes by and all they get from Washington is a report that states you'll be home sometime in the next 6 months. Disappointing? Drop in morale?

My point was clearly made, but I get it you have to have the last word, which is fine.

 

[wawaweewa]

The major problem is that people look at monetary/ economic issues through the lens of politics. Forget politics.
You cannot analyze monetary/economic problems(or situations) through the political prism. You cannot arrive at thecorrect conclusion to any economic situation if you start from a political [does not include philosophical] perspective.

Forget the Dem/Repub, right/left gibberish. That's theater for the masses. It never explains why things are donein a certain way and not another or why things are even done in the first place.

 

[rockin my xiii]

obama is more of a celebrity than a president

 

[jdb1523]

I'm waiting for somebody to respond to Fede DPT's last post because everything he said is 100% truth.

 

[h1ghstar]

Originally Posted by ROCKIN MY XIII

obama is more of a celebrity than a president

 

[Betonblck]

Originally Posted by Fede DPT

OBAMA LIED, THE ECONOMY DIED.




That's all I'm saying in this thread. Obama promised NO "earmarks", NO "big Gov't", he would go "line-by-line".


Obama = Socialist

You guys will just make up lies. How you gonna take the Republicans agenda and talking points like "no big gov't" and say that Obama promisedthose things.

 

[rexanglorum]

People like DKY, can make money on bear markets by knowing when to short sell so when he and others like him point out how the market's behaviorrepresents a bad sign of Obama's plans, they are not talking based on personal financial interest. The Stock market is not the economy but it shows howpeople, whose money is on the line (as opposed to high school kids, college kids and others who can base their political and economic predictions on how theirfreinds at the coffee house will react), believe the economy will perform in the future.

While time will tell and it is premature to declare Obama's presidency and handling of the economy a failure, what he has done thus far has not been helpfuland has caused further harm to a mess that began before he took office. He appears to be making a bad situation worse. His stimulus may or may not create jobsbuts it will certiantly create a deficit and a deficit that unprecidented in peacetime.


First, we have Obama's unprecedented deficit spending. As a share of GDP, the previous high in peacetime was six percent of GDP, Obama will likely doubleit. Empirical evidence from other countries has shown that the economic problems associated with deficit spending increase drastically onces the double digitbarrier is passed. The amount of treasury securities on the market increase to level that private bonds get crowded out and that means that it very hard forbusinesses to get funding and that means they do not expand or expand slowly and that means less and lower paying jobs. The inetrest rate needed to sell thesetreasury bonds goes up and that makes the public's debt obligations even bigger. Finally, government will likely need to print extra money to cover some ofthis new debt and that means inflation, which hurts everyone.

Second, the stimulus plan is not going to work as well as the White House says it will work. Government spending can stimulate an economy but the problem isthat the stimulus becomes more effective as the economy gets worse. This means that the stimulus should work as a back stop against 15% or greaterunecmployment because if GDP were to shrink so much that unemployment would have been 15%, then the stimulus will have a strong jolt ad push unemployment toaround 10%. The fact tha twe have a backstop is good (although it should not have had to cost so much) but it will not restore full employment because thestimulus become less and less effective when unemployment is a few points above full employment, as it is now.

Third, Timothy Geithner does not cause confidence on Wall Street and he is uninspiring at best and scary at worse to any mainstreeter who does his or herhomework. He did a terrible job as Charirman of the New York Fed, his plan caused a selloff when he announced it and he simply seems either over his head, upto his neck in corruption (his deputy is a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs) or most likely both.

Forth, Barack Obama is in the pocket of major Labor Unions. There is nothing intrinsicly wrong with unions but there is something very wrong with governmentactively taking either side and Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will give Labor Unions the full backing of the Federal Gvernment and that means thatful employment will be harder to obtain because the Union will egt wages that are above the competitive market rate. It is good for them and bad for the peoplewho will remain unemplyed for a very long time. Also, this unwaivering support of Unions will mean that as long as an industry is Unionized, it will beprotected with tax payer dollars, even if it is failing.

Fifth, Barack Obama and moreso certain Congressional Democrats will always but any environmental concern over humanity. This is not hyberbole, for someenvironmentalism is a religio nand many religions demands that humans live less comfortable and more Spartan lives and with this mind set havin ga seat at thetable of Government, espect less growth and less economic developmen tand more unemployment, lower wages and a higher cost of living relative to a morebalanced approach to the environment.

Sixth, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats want to run much of the economy. Regardless of who is i npower, Government does not do a good job runningfirms. They do have the incentives, the expertise or the incentives to be efficient and we pay for that in efficiency. Some Democrats want t oru nthe banks,the energy sector, healthcare, the auto industry, the mortgage industry as well as most of the resources used for construction. The stretgy of governmentcontrol over all or most of the key sectors of the Economy has not worked, is not workin gwhere it is being tried and will not work here. No matter how wellintentioned, smart and well trained the politicians and technocrats may be (and for our politicians, there is reaso nfor doubt in all three areas) governmentrun economies are doomed to failure.

Also before you cite Sweden or France as success stories of socialism, they are not truly socialist. They have more regulations, a more active welafre systemand in some cases higher taxes (and lower taxes on other things). When Western European countries tried true socialism, government ownership of key sectors ofthe economy, they faced the prospect of becoming fourth world nations, a once wealthy country that became poor. It was because of the failure of socialism thatWestern European nations have backed away from true socialism, government ownership of the means of production, to an active social safety net and set ofregulations that exists along side fundamentally capitalist set of economies, with the means of production in private hands.

Seventh, the Democrats, want to reduce foreign trade. While Economists disagree over exactly how the stimulus will work and if tax cuts or spendin gicnreasinghave a stronger effect, they are almost unanimous that government enacted barriers to trade make societies poorer. Trade makes us richer then we otherwisewould be. If you do not believe me or economic theory. Take a look at North Krea, a country with virtually no foreign trade. Look at Iraq while under sanctionand the pain it caused (in essense protectionism is like imposing sanctions on one's own country). If theory, scholarly opinion and empirical evidence donot dissuade you from protectionism. Imagine if you could only buy goods made in your own State, now from just your own town, now image if you had to makeeverything you consume. The protectionism in the works essentially psuhes us closer to the caveman side of the spectrum.

Finally, Barack Obama is rasing taxes. First, his tax increase on incomes over 250k will effect ordinary Americans. Many whose incomes are over 250k hireothers, they are doctors, lawyers and small business owners who tend to make over a quarter million because they earn it by working well over 40 hours perweek. Many will reduce their work hours, which means that the services that they provide will be less available to consumers and they may very well cut down ontheir staff and/or their staff's working hours. This change in behavior to avoid taxes will mean less tax revenues. Even if high earners do not changetheir behavior and pay the additional income tax there still will need to be more tax revenues and eventually you will bear a financial burden from Obama'sbudgets.

Remember also that high taxes slow economic growth, compared to where it would be with lower taxes and that means lowe rwages, unemployment or underemployment,more expensive consumer goods and a generally lower standard of living. This is not mere economic theory, this ought not be a political football and we shouldnot even be having to have this discussion because history has shown how counter productive high taxes are on the standards of living for everyone.


Misplaced government involvement in housing and bad monetary policy combined with a Congress and Presidents all too willing to subsidize bad decision making bybig business has resulted i na set of problems that existed well before Obama took office and were clearly beyond his control. So claiming all that is wrong onhim is unfair and incoorect. What is correct is that as Barack Obama has implemented his policies, those who make a living based on how well they can predictthe vitality of the economy have signaled even more pessimism since our President was inaugurated. If the President continues on the path he has set duringthese few short weeks we could be in for many long and miserable years.

Unfortunately, far too many people care little for economics and even less about results, they have vision of the world and want to see it implemented and whenit fails they will blame some else. With so much at stake, I wish people like that would grow up and stop indulging themselves. In times like these that way ofthinking or rather that way of failing to think is failing us all and is the epitome of selfish.



Cliff Notes:

- Too many people care more about politics than economics and results.
- Obama is blameless for the problems that predated his presidency.
- Everthing he has done thus far is not helping.
- Those who put their money where their mouth is are predicting that Obama's plans will not help.
- We live in serious times, pay far the most serious times in decades and many people still are not acting or thinking in a serious way.

see Hoover not doing anything, see FDR....


FDR got us out of depression, the only time economy got worse than the previous year was when he stopped the New Deal from being as big as it was before (1936-1938 give or take a year)... When he started putting more money in, economy was better..


The fact that you have a portrait of Barack Obama as your avy is a good indicator of how objective you can be but this is even worse. President Hoover did muchmore than nothing, he imposed trade barriers, rasied taxes and took other measures to try to "run" the economy back into shape. It did not work andFDR came to power, did more, made recapitalizing and investing in the US risky because he was so powerful and so erratic, encouraged cartels which furtherincreased and prolonged high unemployment and generally made sure that the crisis lasted longer so he could remake society how he pleased.

The narrative about the Great Depression is a grand tower of lies, constructed by those who want to glorify and expand the state, despite the death,diassapoint and despair such ideologies have yielded.


BTW, Essential, without using slogans from the Obama campaign, can you explain in your own word how Bush advanced free market (not pro business but pro freeenterprise) policies and how it is the primary cause of the housing crash? Seriously, can you do that?

 

[kdawg]

First off, tell me where is says in the Constitution where it say Health Care is a right?


So, it has to be in the Constitution to be something people should have? I'm no constitutional lawyer (and as most of you will know I'm not evenAmerican), but that is just silly. As far as I know the Constitution doesn't say anything about having clean water or elementary school education eitherbut are they not things that people should have?

Aren't there "natural rights" that aren't specifically mentioned but are alluded to?

Finally, Barack Obama is rasing taxes. First, his tax increase on incomes over 250k will effect ordinary Americans. Many whose incomes are over 250k hire others, they are doctors, lawyers and small business owners who tend to make over a quarter million because they earn it by working well over 40 hours per week. Many will reduce their work hours, which means that the services that they provide will be less available to consumers and they may very well cut down on their staff and/or their staff's working hours. This change in behavior to avoid taxes will mean less tax revenues. Even if high earners do not change their behavior and pay the additional income tax there still will need to be more tax revenues and eventually you will bear a financial burden from Obama's budgets.


People who earn over $250k aren't "ordinary" Americans. The vast majority of the country make a lot less than that and they are the ones who needhelp. The few having to spend less (even if it is on staff) doesn't make nearly enough difference to fix the problem.

 

[dmxfury]

tax increases on the wealthy during a downturn is a bad idea though, see Hoover. Economics do not have to be politically aligned, believe itor not. I treat itas a a seperate entity, as do a lot here. My fear is Obama goes down the Hoover/Carter route, which would be bad. He is/should be better than that. And I saidbefore, I say again. The giverent by nature is mismanaged and inefficient. The more they control, the worse off the economy is.

 

[dmxfury]

as for people blaming him for our current situation, that is stupid. But it is fair to question the tactics being used to try to get us out of it, I don'tsee the harm in that, part of being the leader of this country

 

[DeadsetAce]

95% of NTers should not be discussing politics

 

[dmxfury]

Ricky, you are right and depending on the situation at that point it may be something to look at, but why even talk about it when nobody has any idea what thehealth of the economy will be or what will need to be done at that time. I swear we have the same "theory" debate every two weeks, we should juststicky a post

 

[rexanglorum]

kdawg wrote:

---

Finally, Barack Obama is rasing taxes. First, his tax increase on incomes over 250k will effect ordinary Americans. Many whose incomes are over 250k hire others, they are doctors, lawyers and small business owners who tend to make over a quarter million because they earn it by working well over 40 hours per week. Many will reduce their work hours, which means that the services that they provide will be less available to consumers and they may very well cut down on their staff and/or their staff's working hours. This change in behavior to avoid taxes will mean less tax revenues. Even if high earners do not change their behavior and pay the additional income tax there still will need to be more tax revenues and eventually you will bear a financial burden from Obama's budgets.


People who earn over $250k aren't "ordinary" Americans. The vast majority of the country make a lot less than that and they are the ones who need help. The few having to spend less (even if it is on staff) doesn't make nearly enough difference to fix the problem.

I think you just articulated a major difference between those on the "left" and those on the "right" and those who are libertarians. Thosewho are on the left think of taxes in terms of dollars and cents and only those whose tax burden is increased or decreased. Those who are more libertarianleaning tend to think of the seconday effects of taxation and we beleive that taxation effects behavior and that it ends up affecting many more people thanthose who taxes changed as a result a given tax policy.

Most Americans do not earn 250k or more per year but taxing those who do can and will affect many, many Americans then those whose own income tax burdens getincreased by this impending tax hike. The reason we are i na recession is because GDP is shrinking, for various reasons we are becoming less productive than wewere a year ago and it shows i na lowe rstandard of living for almost everyone in this country. The way out of this recession is for GDP to grow.

With that it mind, it seems unwise to single our a group of Americans who are very producttive, who contribute a very large share of GDP per capita, thosemaking over 250k and tell them that their productivity will be punsihed. The result will be less labor hours my some of the most productive Americans.

That means three things for ordinary Amercans, Americans who make far less than 250k. One is that standards of living will be lower because those people whohave the capacity to produce the most will choose to produce below their capacity. The second effect is that many of these high earners are small businessowners and part of their scaling back their productive capacity will be the jobs and/or work hours of those who help that small business owner. Finally, thegovernment gets less tax revenue than it thought it would because it penalizes additional work hours, less work hours are done by high earners and less moneyis available to tax so the original justification for the bad policy of tax hikes ends up not being fulfilled to the extent its advocates wished.

 

[curiousgeorg3]

Originally Posted by rickybadman

Originally Posted by dmxfury

tax increases on the wealthy during a downturn is a bad idea though, see Hoover. Economics does. Of have to be politically aligned, believe itor not. I treat
it as a a seperate entity, as do a lot here. My fear is Obama goes down the Hoover/Carter route, which would be bad. He is/should be better than that. And I
said before, I say again. The giverent by nature is mismanaged and inefficient. The more they control, the worse off the economy is.

The tax increase don't start till 2011. Things could be very different then.

Even if the economy is out of the recession by that time, why would you want to limit the recovery?

 

[kdawg]

who contribute a very large share of GDP per capita


But that's my point - sure, they have a large share of GDP (and then the tax income accordingly) per capita but as a whole that isn't a hugeamount of the GDP as there are so few of them.

I'd like to see the numbers on how many people in the US make over $250k. That would be interesting.

 

[kdawg]

Okay, found the numbers from the US Census Bureau - 2005 is the most recent I could find. Bear in mind that this is the income of a family - not individuals.They counted everyone older than 15 and add them altogether.

53% makes less than $50k. 85% of the country makes less than $100k.

98.5% makes less than $250k.

 

[jose cansec0]

they need someone to put the blame on, plus hes black...so everything fits their criteria...

 

[dmxfury]

crazy stat - the top 1% of taxpayers pay the same amount of federal imcome tax as the bottom 95%. Now 250k is not in THAT range but just interesting

 

[dmxfury]

Jose - who is the "their" you speak of?

 

[rexanglorum]

That is my point, the law will only change the income tax rates of a fairly small group but will have an adverse impact that affects a much larger group thanthe group whose taxes are changed.

 

[schaefmp]

It's difficult being republican and not being religious.
I was about to say Amen but i'll instead just agree.

 

[essential1]

Rexanglorum it actually started before Bush but I'll go all the way back to what started it


In 1998 Citi Bank was allowed to merge with Traveler's because in 1999 the Glass Stegall act was dropped (made in Great Depression.. put a wall betweenregulated mainstream banks and unregulated investment banks)... These types of mergers were continued to be allowed for a decade until the banks were "toobig to fail"

This allowed them to start putting money in derivatives. Regulators let firms hide their derivatives off the books and in turn allowed banks to not have tokeep enough money to cover possible losses. Passed by Financial Accounting Standards Committee and push by bank execs.

Clinton regulators wanted oversight Treasury Sec. said no.


In 2000 Sen. Phil Grahm push legislation through Congress setting derivatives at nearly no regulation...

Now fast forward to 04, Bush scrapped rule where you have to set away a certain amount of cash to cover investment losses and banks got to choose how much wasneeded on hand... Pushed by Goldman Sach's Chairmen Hank Paulsin who ended up being Bush's Treasury Sec.

With derivatives deregulated, banks could turn bets on anything into derivatives including housing mortgages. Once mortgages became derivatives they had everyincentive to make mortgages including bad mortgages and predatory lending because it could be turned into a derivative and sold to someone else..

Normally no financial firm would buy a derivative based on predatory mortgage because it could lend to a pending lawsuit but Congressman Bob Nay blockedvictims of predatory lending from suing all who profitted from them and left Wall Street with nothing to lose or risk.

Wall Street Executives earned their big compensations and bonuses based on pushing the worst mortgages derivatives onto someone else for big cash.

This fueld the housing bubble as mortgage brokers told people who couldn't pay mortgages that they could..

From 02-07 Federal Reserve only took 3 formal actions against sub-prime lenders...

From 04-07 Bush Treas. Sec. took 3 consumer protection enforcement acts.

1 including new rule to stop states from enforcing their own consumer protectuin law to nllify state anti-predatory lending clause...


So basically house prices kept going up and up and amount of those who bought a house kept going up and up... Banks put mortgages to people they knowcouldn't afford it, more people started to not be able to pay the mortgages so more people were forclosed on.. Since banks put most of their money intomortgages in the form of derivatives they lost their money because as the houses were being forclosed on the value of the mortgages dropped because like allthings there is a breaking point to how high a price can go before people are uninterested...

So the problem was started by Clinton but Bush not acting on it and not regulating it when he had the chance and when people predicted a crisis we have theproblem we have now...

Banks put money into houses > Houses being forclosed on > Banks lose majority of their money > Banks go under > Stocks crash adding to Bank'sdamage > People lose their investments, hedgefunds, etc... > Jobs cut = economic crisis..

 

[kdawg]

I remembered the sentence I was thinking about - and I'm sure you all know it. It wasn't from the constitution at all but from the declaration ofindependence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Life? Healthy life? As much a right to being able to live as everyone else?

I would say so.

 

[fede dpt]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Rexanglorum it actually started before Bush but I'll go all the way back to what started it


In 1998 Citi Bank was allowed to merge with Traveler's because in 1999 the Glass Stegall act was dropped (made in Great Depression.. put a wall between regulated mainstream banks and unregulated investment banks)... These types of mergers were continued to be allowed for a decade until the banks were "too big to fail"

This allowed them to start putting money in derivatives. Regulators let firms hide their derivatives off the books and in turn allowed banks to not have to keep enough money to cover possible losses. Passed by Financial Accounting Standards Committee and push by bank execs.

Clinton regulators wanted oversight Treasury Sec. said no.


In 2000 Sen. Phil Grahm push legislation through Congress setting derivatives at nearly no regulation...

Now fast forward to 04, Bush scrapped rule where you have to set away a certain amount of cash to cover investment losses and banks got to choose how much was needed on hand... Pushed by Goldman Sach's Chairmen Hank Paulsin who ended up being Bush's Treasury Sec.

With derivatives deregulated, banks could turn bets on anything into derivatives including housing mortgages. Once mortgages became derivatives they had every incentive to make mortgages including bad mortgages and predatory lending because it could be turned into a derivative and sold to someone else..

Normally no financial firm would buy a derivative based on predatory mortgage because it could lend to a pending lawsuit but Congressman Bob Nay blocked victims of predatory lending from suing all who profitted from them and left Wall Street with nothing to lose or risk.

Wall Street Executives earned their big compensations and bonuses based on pushing the worst mortgages derivatives onto someone else for big cash.

This fueld the housing bubble as mortgage brokers told people who couldn't pay mortgages that they could..

From 02-07 Federal Reserve only took 3 formal actions against sub-prime lenders...

From 04-07 Bush Treas. Sec. took 3 consumer protection enforcement acts.

1 including new rule to stop states from enforcing their own consumer protectuin law to nllify state anti-predatory lending clause...


So basically house prices kept going up and up and amount of those who bought a house kept going up and up... Banks put mortgages to people they know couldn't afford it, more people started to not be able to pay the mortgages so more people were forclosed on.. Since banks put most of their money into mortgages in the form of derivatives they lost their money because as the houses were being forclosed on the value of the mortgages dropped because like all things there is a breaking point to how high a price can go before people are uninterested...

So the problem was started by Clinton but Bush not acting on it and not regulating it when he had the chance and when people predicted a crisis we have the problem we have now...

Banks put money into houses > Houses being forclosed on > Banks lose majority of their money > Banks go under > Stocks crash adding to Bank's damage > People lose their investments, hedgefunds, etc... > Jobs cut = economic crisis..

It started with Woodrow Wilson...