The Obama Economy. As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: eleison
SOLUTION: Let businesses do what they do best which is create wealth which in turns create jobs; if you don't have business, you don't have jobs.. simple.

tried and done with bush

failed business within last 5 yrs with BUSH and deregulation

what do you propose we do now?

Weeeel.. looks like you got me there, friend. Capitalism is a failure. Nothing more we can do but nationalize all the business.. Take them down and start the socialist revolution.

All we need now are the little red books, KGB inspired spooks, massive famine that killed millions like the ones in eastern Europe and pitchfork countrymen yearning for "year zero"...

In all seriousness, business are not the enemy. They are there to provide jobs.. without business there are no jobs. while YOU want regulation.. Regulation is not pro-business. It has "un-intended consequences". It reduces efficiencies. Look at government run business. There are very few that run efficiently. Look at the post office and the driver motor vechicle facilites (DMV) -- all very inefficient.

It can also be argued that regulation cause the financial mess that we are in now. The "too big to fail" mentality was already in place before the housing bubble burst. It has also been argued that banks kept on lending because they figured if they were in any serious trouble the government would bail them out.. which they did.

We need to let business fail and let the good one succeed. We need to clear out the bad mortgages instead of giving them money... seemingly.. every quarter... and finally, we need to stop spending money we do not have. Government alone cannot get us out of this recession. Governments also needs the help of business -- which Obama cannot understand with his community organizer mindset.

Or may you need to do a bit of reading.

Or perhaps we should go back to the golden days of dirt roads, quack medicine, and child labour.

Oh and what kind of utopia are you proposing where business exists to provide jobs?

Business exists to make money for its owner/owners. Point final.

S&M

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

if they do, please list or ask them to list them. I have not seen one...

I should ask them to? Haha, childish.

Watch cable news, there are almost always economists on with their views. Often these are professors/economists from university, possibly even some who signed that letter.

Some call BS on the stim effects of 'shovel ready' infrastructure projects. They want the money spent elsewhere (I can't remember ATM what each specified).

Some complain that there was barely any infrastructure in the stim bill (it was a pitifully samll portion of the bill). So their suggestion was that far more s/h/b devoted to 'shovel ready' infrastructure projects.

Others claim the amount of the stim bill was far too little. They say how much more (again I can't remember ATM).

The old joke is that if you put 10 economists in room to come up the answer to a problem, you'll get 11 opinions.

Economists aren't united around anything other than something should be done. Watch the cable news and you'll find they all have their own solution.

Fern

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: eleison
SOLUTION: Let businesses do what they do best which is create wealth which in turns create jobs; if you don't have business, you don't have jobs.. simple.

tried and done with bush

failed business within last 5 yrs with BUSH and deregulation

what do you propose we do now?

Weeeel.. looks like you got me there, friend. Capitalism is a failure. Nothing more we can do but nationalize all the business.. Take them down and start the socialist revolution.

why would you oppose current policy if you do not know anything better? I suppose you are just opposing it for the sake of opposition.. but its ok..

before we turn socialism (which even China can't handle), why not try Keynesian for a while? we have no alternatives and we got nothing left to lose, and it could be the optimal solution afterall.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

if they do, please list or ask them to list them. I have not seen one...

I should ask them to? Haha, childish.
Fern

so you have not seen one either...?..okay...

the fact is, you are opposing a policy that you do not know if its already optimal., you are just opposing for the sake of opposition.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: eleison
SOLUTION: Let businesses do what they do best which is create wealth which in turns create jobs; if you don't have business, you don't have jobs.. simple.

tried and done with bush

failed business within last 5 yrs with BUSH and deregulation

what do you propose we do now?

Weeeel.. looks like you got me there, friend. Capitalism is a failure. Nothing more we can do but nationalize all the business.. Take them down and start the socialist revolution.

All we need now are the little red books, KGB inspired spooks, massive famine that killed millions like the ones in eastern Europe and pitchfork countrymen yearning for "year zero"...

In all seriousness, business are not the enemy. They are there to provide jobs.. without business there are no jobs. while YOU want regulation.. Regulation is not pro-business. It has "un-intended consequences". It reduces efficiencies. Look at government run business. There are very few that run efficiently. Look at the post office and the driver motor vechicle facilites (DMV) -- all very inefficient.

It can also be argued that regulation cause the financial mess that we are in now. The "too big to fail" mentality was already in place before the housing bubble burst. It has also been argued that banks kept on lending because they figured if they were in any serious trouble the government would bail them out.. which they did.

We need to let business fail and let the good one succeed. We need to clear out the bad mortgages instead of giving them money... seemingly.. every quarter... and finally, we need to stop spending money we do not have. Government alone cannot get us out of this recession. Governments also needs the help of business -- which Obama cannot understand with his community organizer mindset.

Or may you need to do a bit of reading.

Or perhaps we should go back to the golden days of dirt roads, quack medicine, and child labour.

Oh and what kind of utopia are you proposing where business exists to provide jobs?

Business exists to make money for its owner/owners. Point final.

S&M

I dont' need to "go back".. I can just visit eastern europe.. or latin america.. or even some parts of mexico. These places being more socialistic/anti-capitalist then the US

Right. Business exist to make money.. That's a bad thing. Lets just kill all the businesses and just give people money.. Great idea hippie. Pass the pipe, brother.. No businesses.. that's gonna solve unemployment.. Next thing your going to propose is that we force everyone to dig ditches so they're 100% employment.

Any more great ideas, Cheech?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: eleison
SOLUTION: Let businesses do what they do best which is create wealth which in turns create jobs; if you don't have business, you don't have jobs.. simple.

tried and done with bush

failed business within last 5 yrs with BUSH and deregulation

what do you propose we do now?

Weeeel.. looks like you got me there, friend. Capitalism is a failure. Nothing more we can do but nationalize all the business.. Take them down and start the socialist revolution.

All we need now are the little red books, KGB inspired spooks, massive famine that killed millions like the ones in eastern Europe and pitchfork countrymen yearning for "year zero"...

In all seriousness, business are not the enemy. They are there to provide jobs.. without business there are no jobs. while YOU want regulation.. Regulation is not pro-business. It has "un-intended consequences". It reduces efficiencies. Look at government run business. There are very few that run efficiently. Look at the post office and the driver motor vechicle facilites (DMV) -- all very inefficient.

It can also be argued that regulation cause the financial mess that we are in now. The "too big to fail" mentality was already in place before the housing bubble burst. It has also been argued that banks kept on lending because they figured if they were in any serious trouble the government would bail them out.. which they did.

We need to let business fail and let the good one succeed. We need to clear out the bad mortgages instead of giving them money... seemingly.. every quarter... and finally, we need to stop spending money we do not have. Government alone cannot get us out of this recession. Governments also needs the help of business -- which Obama cannot understand with his community organizer mindset.

Or may you need to do a bit of reading.

Or perhaps we should go back to the golden days of dirt roads, quack medicine, and child labour.

Oh and what kind of utopia are you proposing where business exists to provide jobs?

Business exists to make money for its owner/owners. Point final.

S&M

I dont' need to "go back".. I can just visit eastern europe.. or latin america.. or even some parts of mexico. These places being more socialistic/anti-capitalist then the US

Right. Business exist to make money.. That's a bad thing. Lets just kill all the businesses and just give people money.. Great idea hippie. Pass the pipe, brother.. No businesses.. that's gonna solve unemployment.. Next thing your going to propose is that we force everyone to dig ditches so they're 100% employment.

Any more great ideas, Cheech?

You are why abortion is legal.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: eleison

I dont' need to "go back".. I can just visit eastern europe.. or latin america.. or even some parts of mexico. These places being more socialistic/anti-capitalist then the US

Right. Business exist to make money.. That's a bad thing. Lets just kill all the businesses and just give people money.. Great idea hippie. Pass the pipe, brother.. No businesses.. that's gonna solve unemployment.. Next thing your going to propose is that we force everyone to dig ditches so they're 100% employment.

Any more great ideas, Cheech?

You are why abortion is legal.

He's just venting because he has to keep silent around his GF's friends or they'd kick his ass.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: eleison
SOLUTION: Let businesses do what they do best which is create wealth which in turns create jobs; if you don't have business, you don't have jobs.. simple.

tried and done with bush

failed business within last 5 yrs with BUSH and deregulation

what do you propose we do now?

Weeeel.. looks like you got me there, friend. Capitalism is a failure. Nothing more we can do but nationalize all the business.. Take them down and start the socialist revolution.

All we need now are the little red books, KGB inspired spooks, massive famine that killed millions like the ones in eastern Europe and pitchfork countrymen yearning for "year zero"...

In all seriousness, business are not the enemy. They are there to provide jobs.. without business there are no jobs. while YOU want regulation.. Regulation is not pro-business. It has "un-intended consequences". It reduces efficiencies. Look at government run business. There are very few that run efficiently. Look at the post office and the driver motor vechicle facilites (DMV) -- all very inefficient.

It can also be argued that regulation cause the financial mess that we are in now. The "too big to fail" mentality was already in place before the housing bubble burst. It has also been argued that banks kept on lending because they figured if they were in any serious trouble the government would bail them out.. which they did.

We need to let business fail and let the good one succeed. We need to clear out the bad mortgages instead of giving them money... seemingly.. every quarter... and finally, we need to stop spending money we do not have. Government alone cannot get us out of this recession. Governments also needs the help of business -- which Obama cannot understand with his community organizer mindset.

Or may you need to do a bit of reading.

Or perhaps we should go back to the golden days of dirt roads, quack medicine, and child labour.

Oh and what kind of utopia are you proposing where business exists to provide jobs?

Business exists to make money for its owner/owners. Point final.

S&M

I dont' need to "go back".. I can just visit eastern europe.. or latin america.. or even some parts of mexico. These places being more socialistic/anti-capitalist then the US

Right. Business exist to make money.. That's a bad thing. Lets just kill all the businesses and just give people money.. Great idea hippie. Pass the pipe, brother.. No businesses.. that's gonna solve unemployment.. Next thing your going to propose is that we force everyone to dig ditches so they're 100% employment.

Any more great ideas, Cheech?

I'm not sure how you inferred socialism (which apprently you don't even know the definition of or know what it entails) from what I wrote but its obvious at this point your knee jerk reaction is pretty strong.

In fact, I don't even think you are really having a discussion with anyone...we're all talking about how the economy should work and you're slinging random thoughts about Communists, hippies and non existant government businesses.

S&M

 

[Budmantom]

Obama recently asked Barney Frank to look into the problem and he said he didn't see anything wrong.

 

[0marTheZealot]

sigh, who let the five year olds on the computer? Come on, fess up.

Is it possible to get one decent discussion without it devolving into a bunch of hyperbolic name calling? Both sides have merit.

Anyways, in response to the OP, read the first couple pages, they are hugely instructive.

Basically, the current economy is the result of 20 years of mismanagement/self-fufilling prophecies coming to a head. Obama is not responsible for the current economy anymore than your pet dog is responsible for gamma ray bursts in Messier Cluster 13. As was said earlier, the stimulus bill has just been signed into law, the proposed budget isn't even close to being law yet. In 18 months, I'd judge the state of the economy on Obama's policies. Anything else is just partisanship.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

if they do, please list or ask them to list them. I have not seen one...

I should ask them to? Haha, childish.
Fern

so you have not seen one either...?..okay...

the fact is, you are opposing a policy that you do not know if its already optimal., you are just opposing for the sake of opposition.

Of course I've seen them. I gave you 3 examples that you editied out without acknowledging - poor form IMO. You altered my post without flagging it as such in your quote.

I'm opposing a policy here?

Jeebus you're dense, for the umpteenth time the point of my post was that - no, not all economists are united around this plan as was asserted earlier.

Fern

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

if they do, please list or ask them to list them. I have not seen one...

I should ask them to? Haha, childish.
Fern

so you have not seen one either...?..okay...

the fact is, you are opposing a policy that you do not know if its already optimal., you are just opposing for the sake of opposition.

Of course I've seen them. I gave you 3 examples that you editied out without acknowledging - poor form IMO. You altered my post without flagging it as such in your quote.

I'm opposing a policy here?

Jeebus you're dense, for the umpteenth time the point of my post was that - no, not all economists are united around this plan as was asserted earlier.

Fern

1. 3 examples you gave support Keynesian deficit spending in one way or the other... very only by size and target.

Fern
Some call BS on the stim effects of 'shovel ready' infrastructure projects. They want the money spent elsewhere (I can't remember ATM what each specified).

Some complain that there was barely any infrastructure in the stim bill (it was a pitifully samll portion of the bill). So their suggestion was that far more s/h/b devoted to 'shovel ready' infrastructure projects.

Others claim the amount of the stim bill was far too little. They say how much more (again I can't remember ATM).

2. the article was signed to oppose keynesian theory article

your 1 and 2 are contradicting.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: JS80
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up

Come on JS. You know damn well that the banks f'd up under Bush because de(under)regulation and whatever damage is being realized now was caused because of that. The fallout from those damages (decreased lending, undermining of system confidence, loss of jobs) is only the fault of the prior years.

I have to disagree that he knows that, as accurate as it is.

Hmmm...you do know that Clinton signed the Banking Act of 1999 which substantailly deregulated banks...right?

Part of the Conservative Gongress contract on America, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

What a switch! PJ can no longer piss and moan, point fingers and scream, but Clinton did it!. Now he's switched his usual attempts to distract and divert attention from his mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal to blaming their failures on Obama and his administration because, in the period of a few weeks, they haven't undone all the damage the Bushwhackos did to our economy.

...and you will attempt to deflect every criticism of Obama back to Bush...eventually that song will overstay its welcome, and Obama will have to face the ripples of his policy decisions.

We can all recognize that Obama inherited a mess left to him by the Bush Administration...he ran on a campaign of fixing and changing everything the American people despised about the GOP...failure to deliver on that promise will determine the fate of his Presidency, and you will be unable to blame Bush for that.

 

[sportage]

Oh Newt... How about investing everyones SS retirement into the market now???? hehe

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: JS80
never, the left will always have W to blame and the people will eat it up

And rightly so. After all he did leave office with a tanked nation. PJ is looking for more excuses to blame it on anyone but bush.

When reality it was No One But Bush is the reason why we are here. No one is going to tank the country in 1 - 3 years, you need a good 8 years to do it you know like your buddy had 8 years to fix the problem.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Topic Title: The Obama Economy. As the Dow keeps dropping, the President is running out of people to blame.
Topic Summary: At what point does Obama own it?

What a switch! PJ can no longer piss and moan, point fingers and scream, but Clinton did it!. Now he's switched his usual attempts to distract and divert attention from his mercifully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal to blaming their failures on Obama and his administration because, in the period of a few weeks, they haven't undone all the damage the Bushwhackos did to our economy.

It will be years, if not decades, before damage and stench from the Bushwhackos is gone.

What really funny if you look a few posts back just before bush left office and the nation was tanking PJ was saying right along with his buddy McSame how great everything was!


Hahahaha What a flip flopping troll.

Oh well, what do you expect from a cry baby OP?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
As senseamp said the dow and the economy are two different things.

It will take at least a year or more before Obama's policies start to really effect the economy.

The stock market is a totally different ball game though. If the stock market felt that Obama was making the right moves towards turning the economy around it wouldn't be in this free fall.

uh... Wake up...Get real... It's not JUST AMERICA that the stocks are falling it's GLOBAL.

Hello????

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well among other things, the leading alternative energy industry in the world, that's the goal.

Having more college graduates than any other industrialized nation, that's the goal.

Reducing the overhead costs of the healthcare system, that's the goal.

Whether you believe these goals are attainable if up to you of course, but compared to Bush's deficits, what can you point to that was actually a goal aimed at achieving something in this country?

I can't think of anything of significance.

These are a pipedream and not worth 800 billion + 1.75 Trillion deficits.

Bush's deficits are the same as Obama's deficits. A drain on our economy but allows politicians to consolidate power.

That said if that is all you can come up with as "huge rewards". I suggest dopping that cliche of a response.

Nice response. As usual you can't give bush any credit because most of the money went to the rich assholes and big business ...

Nothing to show for it. I'd rather have "tried" and LOST then just stuffed money down a never ending hole.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

many businesses failed during the last 2 yrs of his administration... didn't you notice?

list get longer since 2005 thank you Mr. Bush.

And in you infinite wisdom would have spent trillions propping up bad business models. That makes sense. That said thousands of business go out of business every year. What is it, 1 out of 100 business make it past the 5 year mark?

obviously Bush listened to you, to just let them fail. Look at at now :roll:

its a list of BIG businesses that failed = great number of people lost jobs.

Dont worry Obama will listen to you spend trillions and they will still fail and those people will lose their jobs. Only they will be stuck with a huge bill for losing their job.

so you do agree your last proposed laissez-faire under Bush failed hard, yet you do not want to go Keynesian...

what do you propose we do now?

Not at all. A failing business model needs to fail. When failing business models going out of work the market and economy in the long run are better for it.

I agree with that.... I think AIG and banks, automakers etc...etc... should not get hand outs but... For some reason, the model is the one that is tried tested and proven and they don't want to change the system.

I believe it should be changed but........Your not the president, Bush did a Horrid job, and now it's Obama's turn. I'll give him a year to see if he can change it. I doubt he can but.... Oh well, at least were spending the $$ at home.

 

[nullzero]

Obama and his economic team have no damn clue what the hell they are doing... They are driving the titanic around in circles instead of telling people to head for the lifeboats. Now Obama and his team can not make up its mind on the tax hikes. Just like they flip flopped on the nationalization of banks. Come on Obama did you pass economic in high school? Raising taxes during a economic down turn will cause less tax revenue ultimately... productivity is going down so all you are doing is moving wealth from one place to another with a diminishing source of wealth.

White House Rethinks Tax Hikes
Obama Open to Revising Plan to Cap Breaks on Mortgage Interest and Donations

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621392108135233.html

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: nullzero
Obama and his economic team have no damn clue what the hell they are doing .....

Well .... no. If you have a better alternative we would all like to see it.

""Whining, flame-throwing, bitchin' and moaning"" is not a plan.

Providing cash to insolvent banks;
Reduce leverage in finance;
Addressing mortgage failures and declining real estate;
Increasing interbank liquidity and encouraging lending by the Fed;
Reduction in payroll taxes, cash for state and local gov'ts; and
Infrastructure improvements.

That's a plan.

But the underlying issue still remains - how to handle $4 or $5 trillion in toxic 'securitized' paper on bank books.

Got any ideas?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: alchemize
So instead of reading this whole thread, I'll just ask on occassion if any left-leaning members have answered the OP's question?

Daily bump. Still haven't seen an answer.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize
So instead of reading this whole thread, I'll just ask on occassion if any left-leaning members have answered the OP's question?

Daily bump. Still haven't seen an answer.

Never. I simply don't see any correlations between a couple % points of the higher end tax bracket with global economic trends. We are in the shitter not because of presidential decisions but because of over-leveraging on a global scale. It's going to suck to get out of and when we do it won't be because of bailouts and other legislated decisions. Furthermore, if the recession deepens it sure as fuck isn't because Obama is tagging a few more % points onto the top bracket.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: alchemize
So instead of reading this whole thread, I'll just ask on occassion if any left-leaning members have answered the OP's question?

Daily bump. Still haven't seen an answer.

1 year from now, which is more than your 8 months, but I'm a generous soul.