relax

Author Topic: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists  (Read 11145 times)

Offline merm

  • Administrator
  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2643
  • Gender: Female
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2009, 04:45:37 PM »
GWB was severely criticized for using the threat of terrorism to advance, what some believe, as an assault on personal liberties. O'Bama (Happy St. Pat's Day) is using the threat of a depression to advance an assault on financial liberties.
So why the governance by crisis?

Actually, as I recall it was the Bush Administration, a Republican Treasury, and still a Republican FED that first used the threat of "catastrophe" to assault financial liberties. This is what I mean by Obama continuing some of Bush's policies, so it's hard for me to buy the "socialist" argument. Even so, since many conservatives such as yourself are fully convinced this kind of action is akin to "socialism" I've searched the forum looking for any quotes by you suggesting Bush was advancing a Socialist agenda but can't find any for some strange reason.

Offline essen

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2000
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2009, 05:40:27 PM »
I believe that it is because there is no way that a free populace would accept many of these programs is they weren't constantly bombarded with worst case scenarios.

I think part of that problem is that the government is constantly being bombarded with worst case scenarios and doesn't know how to deal with them aside from throwing money in their direction without really thinking about it. Case in point: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13112282/Aig-Systemic-090309

How the hell should Obama know how to respond to that? And Geithner, who should know better, doesn't seem to be good for anything aside from getting "outraged" when bailed out companies pay out bonuses, even though there was no agreement reached beforehand that they should not pay out huge bonuses if they get the money. These people didn't learn from the other dollar giveaways that people will turn around and use the money as they wish if there are no stipulations stating otherwise. I think it's total bullshit that they want to righteously demand the money back (or even better, suggest that the bonus recipients resign or kill themselves) or just tax it out of the bonus recipients. They should write this off as a result of their stupidity and do better next time. $165 million in bonus payouts is nothing compared to the total amount AIG has gotten from the government.

I am so sick of all politicians, and I have no faith in any of them to actually do what a thinking person with a conscience would do, as opposed to acting in their own self-interest and trying to appease "the taxpayers" by crying outrage in order to get some airtime and get re-elected. The Republicans aren't any better than the Democrats and have been behaving in an equally ludicrous manner. These people all suck.

Offline Sweeper

  • Mayor
  • ******
  • Posts: 876
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2009, 06:14:05 PM »
Actually, as I recall it was the Bush Administration, a Republican Treasury, and still a Republican FED that first used the threat of "catastrophe" to assault financial liberties. This is what I mean by Obama continuing some of Bush's policies, so it's hard for me to buy the "socialist" argument. Even so, since many conservatives such as yourself are fully convinced this kind of action is akin to "socialism" I've searched the forum looking for any quotes by you suggesting Bush was advancing a Socialist agenda but can't find any for some strange reason.
But you found one where I called Obama's policy "socialism"? Don't bother, you won't. I try to be specific with terms (when I'm not drinking). So the expansion of government is not "socialism", but is still abhorrent to those who believe that "government that governs least, governs best".
I understand the definition of socialism. I understand that there are many who decry Obama being called a socialist, who yearn for socialism. Their protestations are telling.

Offline Debbie

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1151
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2009, 12:52:07 PM »
But you found one where I called Obama's policy "socialism"? Don't bother, you won't. I try to be specific with terms (when I'm not drinking). So the expansion of government is not "socialism", but is still abhorrent to those who believe that "government that governs least, governs best".
I understand the definition of socialism. I understand that there are many who decry Obama being called a socialist, who yearn for socialism. Their protestations are telling.


I really doubt that anyone on this board has a real idea of what 'Socialism' really is.  There are definitions in the Dictionary obviously, but unless one has lived in a Socialist country (not Communist, that is not what I am talking about), how would you really know the pros and cons?  I have spent time in France and Sweden but I have not really had the chance to live there and to see what problems they encounter.  The bottom line I think is this - no one system is really ideal.  Obviously, our Capitalist system has it's problems and issues.  Right now, I think our Nation is suffering because of extreme behaviour of some of it's citizens.  There are so many victims out there who are suffering however, who have done nothing to deserve this.  I think the real test will come if the economy does not turn around (God forbid).  Someone, please answer my question - what happens to a fellow citizen who was not able to save any money due to low wages and living check to check, has lost his or her job, unemployment and Cobra run out, and they cannot get another job??? 

Offline enigmacat

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 3817
  • Gender: Female
  • I am not a minion of evil. I am upper management.
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2009, 01:06:03 PM »
what happens to a fellow citizen who was not able to save any money due to low wages and living check to check, has lost his or her job, unemployment and Cobra run out, and they cannot get another job??? 

and what if that fellow citizen has a health condition that requires daily meds and regular dr visits?

Offline merm

  • Administrator
  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2643
  • Gender: Female
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 01:58:52 PM »
and what if that fellow citizen has a health condition that requires daily meds and regular dr visits?

*Raises hand*

They're fucked?

It's no wonder that medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 02:08:04 PM by merm »

Offline edava

  • Mayor
  • ******
  • Posts: 654
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2009, 04:16:58 PM »
it looks like this:

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline merm

  • Administrator
  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2643
  • Gender: Female
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2009, 06:50:44 PM »
When a fireman sees a house on fire, he sounds an alarm, dons his turnout gear, bravely rescues the occupants and puts out the fire.

When an investment banker sees a house on fire, he quietly sells the burning house short, uses the proceeds to buy a larger house for himself and, when someone suggests that his taxes be raised to help the homeless, he rails against the dangers of socialism.

Offline essen

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2000
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2009, 08:05:54 PM »
When a fireman sees a house on fire, he sounds an alarm, dons his turnout gear, bravely rescues the occupants and puts out the fire.

When an investment banker sees a house on fire, he quietly sells the burning house short, uses the proceeds to buy a larger house for himself and, when someone suggests that his taxes be raised to help the homeless, he rails against the dangers of socialism.

I'm pretty sick of the general investment banker and "Wall Street" being vilified. These guys are already in the highest tax bracket, paying tons of taxes on their salaries AND bonuses even before these moronic TARP bonus resolutions get voted on.

Listening to the idiots in Congress, you'd think the Wall Street fat cats aren't part of the American populace and aren't included when they talk about taxpayers. You'd think these people weren't even citizens with the way they're publicly humiliated now on a daily basis by our elected officials. Ironically, if those bonuses weren't paid out to begin with and their salaries were much lower, the government would have a hell of a lot less taxpayer money to toss around.

Offline Billz1981

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2009, 08:28:40 PM »
When a fireman sees a house on fire, he sounds an alarm, dons his turnout gear, bravely rescues the occupants and puts out the fire.

When an investment banker sees a house on fire, he quietly sells the burning house short, uses the proceeds to buy a larger house for himself and, when someone suggests that his taxes be raised to help the homeless, he rails against the dangers of socialism.

Right, but wouldn't an intelligent, entrepreneurial person prefer to make donations on their own?  In your example, a dollar given directly to a homeless services charity would be of much greater benefit than increased taxation.  Why would the investment banker welcome the idea of his taxes being raised?  He is probably overtaxed already.  The wealthy few provide 95 percent of the tax revenue in this country.  Should he be left with the warm fuzzies as the government appropriates his funds ostensibly to "help the homeless" but instead sets up a bureaucratic structure with massive overhead?

By the way, who is the person in your example suggesting that the taxes be raised?  Because generally, the guy suggesting the tax increase is not the one who will be adversely impacted.  I will not go so far as to call the investment banker in your hypothetical situation a hero, because what does the term hero mean anymore?

This is to say nothing of how much more likely the investment banker is than his cousin in a European nation to donate to good causes himself.  Has anyone here seen the imbalance of philanthropic giving between the U.S. and Europe?  It's staggering.  Because in European nations, people are used to exorbitantly high taxes to cover the causes that they would otherwise be giving to directly.

To expand on what Essen said, those in congress (and those with the prevailing populist attitude) have forgotten that the so called "Fat Cats" provide most of our tax revenue (not the middle and lower class, as advocates would have us believe), and that they provide most of our jobs.  Well, at least they used to.  Until the financial collapse.  Now we will see what happens to the state and city coffers when the bonuses we usually rail against aren't around to siphon off of anymore.

The funny thing is, I'm not even in a high tax bracket.  I'm just someone who aspires to be one day, and someone who realizes the immorality of tax eaters appropriating the wealth of others for their pet causes.  The fact that Barnie Frank can sit on a panel with a straight face and act as though he knows anything about business or financial justice is simply amazing.

Offline merm

  • Administrator
  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2643
  • Gender: Female
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2009, 08:49:23 PM »
Okay, I admit it's not the perfect analogy to describe global economics.

Generally though I'm not really buying the trickle-down economic theory anymore. I think we should try trickle-up for a while. Take the money from the rich, give it to the poor. The poor will then go out and spend the money, giving it back to the rich.

Offline essen

  • Governor
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2000
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2009, 09:11:03 PM »
Generally though I'm not really buying the trickle-down economic theory anymore. I think we should try trickle-up for a while. Take the money from the rich, give it to the poor. The poor will then go out and spend the money, giving it back to the rich.

It's not even about trickle-down economics for me. I don't necessarily buy all that either. I also don't buy that giving a bunch of money to the poor is going to make things any better, as opposed to giving poor people less of an incentive to stop being poor as they receive more benefits from the government.

All this TARP stuff and the general economic direction that we're headed in scares me. The TARP thing alone, I could deal with. Fine. But now they want to claw back the bonuses that were paid back to INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. Employees that in most cases didn't even ask for a bonus - they just received it, because that's how the banking industry works. For the government to try to claw back that money, to me, is seriously fucked up and wrong. There were no stipulations in the original bills saying bonuses couldn't be paid, and the people who got bonuses have been free to spend it up until now. So what happens if congress goes ahead and taxes that 90-100%? What if the bankers can't pay that money back? Imagine if you were a decent person who had a job at an investment bank (yes, there are decent people who work at investment banks). Your salary was $100,000, and you got a bonus of $200,000. Excitedly, you went out and bought an apartment in the city, which you could now afford. Then imagine hearing that congress wants to tax that money out of you after you already got it and spent it. Now do you understand why I, and a lot of others, are rather angry and frankly a little terrified? Do you understand why the vilification of bankers, and the demand for all the bonus recipients names to be released, all sounds a bit too much like McCarthyism?

Honestly, anyone who doesn't see through all this phony populist outrage from our politicians isn't really paying attention. This is dangerous territory. I don't trust Congress, and I have no faith in Geithner. Even if Obama is a good man and could be a good president, I get the feeling he's powerless with what's going on.

Offline Sweeper

  • Mayor
  • ******
  • Posts: 876
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2009, 09:47:15 PM »
Quote
Honestly, anyone who doesn't see through all this phony populist outrage from our politicians isn't really paying attention. This is dangerous territory. I don't trust Congress, and I have no faith in Geithner. Even if Obama is a good man and could be a good president, I get the feeling he's powerless with what's going on.

Be still my heart....

Offline edava

  • Mayor
  • ******
  • Posts: 654
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #28 on: March 18, 2009, 11:29:21 PM »
At what tax percentage are we working for ourselves or for everyone else? How much is too much? 30%, 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%? How 'bout we work, government takes 90% of our money and then gives it back to the rest of the population. Don't worry, that 10% that we keep is for living expenses like milk...unless these things become subsidized too along with food, transportation, etc...

And when exactly is our govt. going to denationalize the banks?  Is there a "return to owner clause" in there and when does that happen? We know how specific they've been with everything else.

Offline kempsternyc

  • Senator
  • ********
  • Posts: 1599
  • Gender: Male
  • Me in a bowler hat and nowhere to go.
Re: Obama and his economic team get failing marks from economists
« Reply #29 on: March 18, 2009, 11:38:51 PM »
At what tax percentage are we working for ourselves or for everyone else? How much is too much? 30%, 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%? How 'bout we work, government takes 90% of our money and then gives it back to the rest of the population. Don't worry, that 10% that we keep is for living expenses like milk...unless these things become subsidized too along with food, transportation, etc...

And when exactly is our govt. going to denationalize the banks?  Is there a "return to owner clause" in there and when does that happen? We know how specific they've been with everything else.

Since you live in Astoria....I doubt you make enough to be hit the the 90% tax rate that was once paid by the top .01 percent of the nation back in the fifties.
I love talking about nothing father, it is the only thing I know anything about -

Lord Goring "An Ideal Husband"


 

Visit our sister site Jackson Heights Life