View Full Version : Can Obama Fix the Economy?
BIG PIZZLE
11-06-2008, 10:12 PM
If you would... let me pose a question:
The market was at 12,652.23 in August of last year (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=47879). Do you think Obama can get the market back up there at the end of his first term?
Stocks Plunge Again on Credit Worries
Thursday August 16, 2007 1:56 pm ET
By Joe Bel Bruno, AP Business Writer Wall Street Extends Retreat As Mortgage, Credit Concerns Remain; Countrywide Taps Credit
NEW YORK (AP) -- Wall Street plunged again Thursday, extending an almost relentless downward spiral after problems at Countrywide Financial Corp. confirmed investors' fears that credit problems are spreading. The market shrugged off the Federal Reserve's injection of $17 billion into the banking system, and the Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 200 points.
[...]
In mid afternoon trading, the Dow tumbled 209.24, or 1.63 percent, to 12,652.23 after being down 343.53 earlier.
The S&P shed 20.22, or 1.44 percent, to 1,386.48, and the Nasdaq composite index dropped 43.14, or 1.75 percent, to 2,415.69. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 2.67, or 0.36 percent, to 748.87.
freegood
11-06-2008, 10:26 PM
4 years...no way. This country is massively leveraged on credit. It's insane.
It can hit 12k from a wild swing, but it won't last.
Genius
11-06-2008, 10:45 PM
I couldn't really care less about the market. He needs to put an end to the job losses, free up credit, and deal with the foreclosure issue, all the while making sure inflation stays in check and government spending is reigned in. He also needs to make sure there is a massive up tick in alternative fuel usage, so that when oil prices skyrocket again next spring, it won't affect pricing across the board. Pull that shit off, and the market will follow suit.
The short answer is no, I don't think he can do it. A positive effect, preventing a moderate recession from turning into a minor depression? Yes. But a complete positive reversal? No. Although, four years is a very long time...
Rover
11-07-2008, 12:19 AM
No. Not with the Keynesian policies he's outlined so far. Those types of policies prolonged the Great Depression for years. If, on the other hand, he could trick the Europeans into starting World War III we could certainly be out of the recession in 4 years. I guess it just depends on how far Obama is willing to go.
No. Not with the Keynesian policies he's outlined so far. Those types of policies prolonged the Great Depression for years. If, on the other hand, he could trick the Europeans into starting World War III we could certainly be out of the recession in 4 years. I guess it just depends on how far Obama is willing to go.
The Depression was over by WWII.
Mustard
11-07-2008, 12:45 AM
Can Obama fix the economy?
Yeah, I think so, at least more than John "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" McCain.
Gary_Busey
11-07-2008, 12:51 AM
The Depression was over because of WWII.
Claydon
11-07-2008, 01:17 AM
ww2 ended the depression.
Fiend1138
11-07-2008, 02:12 AM
who the fucks Obame?
ww2 ended the depression.
And a little something called the "New Deal".
Rover
11-07-2008, 03:37 AM
You and Stax must share your economic books.
The Great Depression was ended because of the war economy. The end. The country was in the middle of a recession in 1937, on top of the Depression. The feel-good social programs of the New Deal did nothing but stunt the effects. The government stimulus provided by the war economy was so much greater than New Deal you can't even compare them. Do you really believe that paying a WPA artist to paint a mural at a train station could lead to economic recovery?
You could make a valid argument for the monetary policies of the Fed to correct what they started, but the New Deal prolonged the Depression.
I should correct myself, the Depression was not OVER by the war, but the suggestion that the New Deal did nothing is retarded. If it did nothing, why would the 1937 recession even be noticeable?
If we get out of Iraq (and by that mean dump the $16+ billion payout we give them each month and eradicate the $4 trillion we've spent wasting our time there) then yes I think progress can be made.
Claydon
11-07-2008, 07:19 PM
If we get out of Iraq (and by that mean dump the $16+ billion payout we give them each month and eradicate the $4 trillion we've spent wasting our time there) then yes I think progress can be made.
4 trillion...? total iraq war costs are less than the bank bailout....
fuzzy math?
dadaelus
11-07-2008, 07:32 PM
Woo Hoo! Tie-Maker! I'll enjoy it while it lasts.
4 trillion...? total iraq war costs are less than the bank bailout....
fuzzy math?
Every dollar wasted in Iraq is... a dollar wasted...
Claydon
11-07-2008, 11:26 PM
Every dollar wasted in Iraq is... a dollar wasted...
what are you a jew?
4 trillion...? total iraq war costs are less than the bank bailout....
fuzzy math?
This is one of several different articles I read recently. I'll find the others later if you'd like.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
The notion that Obama can turn around the economy is naive at best, ignorant at worst. Presidents always get either too much credit or too much blame for the economy (I have posted many times on why the Fed Chairman deserves the majority of the credit/blame for our economic conditions because they control the money supply).
What Obama can do:
- Expand free trade. There are several benefits to expanding free trade: 1.) When countries have a vested economic interest in each other, they are less likely to go to war with each other; 2.) Free trade puts downward pressure on inflation and it gives us access to goods and services that we would not have access to otherwise.
2.) Cuts taxes for all taxpayers (Not that 95% bullshit that he campaigned on and I that doubt will happen), corporations (We have the second highest corp tax rate in the world. That makes us less competitive on a global basis, not more competitive on a global basis) and capital gains taxes.
3.) Get the government out of businesses that the private sector does better. This creates better private sector jobs and it lowers government spending.
4.) Reform the entitlement programs. Mcare, Mcaid, SS, and government pension plans. He can only do it on the federal level, but it needs to be done on the local, state and federal level. Turning every level of government into GM isn't a good idea.
http://www.nber.org/digest/nov08/w14343.html
What he wants to do:
1.) Renegotiate NAFTA, Apply US labor standards to other countries (e.g., Colombia).
2.) We shall see, but I am skeptical about who he is really going to cut taxes for...if at all.
3.) He wants to expand the size of the government significantly. Through a modern version of the New Deal. It didn't work then, and it won't work now (In fact, the first New Deal was ruled unconstitutional. Whatever).
4.) I believe that he has acnowledged that the entitlement programs need reform, but he has not said how he is going to approach the subject. Given his close relationship with the unions, I can see him doing anything to change the status quo.
There are a number of other reforms that he could make, these are just a few off of the top of my head.
Claydon
11-08-2008, 02:02 PM
Given the fact that 1 trillion in debt is going to be sold off (with congressional approval) I can't see how he is going to cut taxes for anyone.
cAsE sEnSiTiVe
11-08-2008, 02:58 PM
I bet this man doesn't believe he can fix it....LOL
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16305269G6fTetJ5?source=embed
Given the fact that 1 trillion in debt is going to be sold off (with congressional approval) I can't see how he is going to cut taxes for anyone.
You are making the same mistake that the politicians make, you are only focusing on revenues. You need to focus on costs and how to cut them.
Rover
11-08-2008, 04:18 PM
You are making the same mistake that the politicians make, you are only focusing on revenues. You need to focus on costs and how to cut them.Whoops. I couldn't have sworn there was a Department of Education and a Department of Housing (how's that working out so far). I guess not. I don't see any budgeting for them.
Claydon
11-08-2008, 04:25 PM
You are making the same mistake that the politicians make, you are only focusing on revenues. You need to focus on costs and how to cut them.
Yes, we can cut costs by doing away with oh I don't know...the DEA pretty much is useless, HUD is pointless and the list goes on and on.
No Child Left Behind
I find Democrats criticism of NCLB confusing. They always complain that we don't spend enough on education. Yet, Bush dramatically increases education spending and they still complain. Shit, Ted Kennedy even helped craft the bill.
Consider K-12 education spending. Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent. According to the department, annual spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006. In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes49.cfm
My biggest beef with NCLB is that they have failed to enforce the vouchers part of the legislation.
Again, if you don't cut entitlement spending our budget problems aren't going anywhere.
I find Democrats criticism of NCLB confusing. They always complain that we don't spend enough on education. Yet, Bush dramatically increases education spending and they still complain. Shit, Ted Kennedy even helped craft the bill.
In my line of work I work with dozens of school teachers from several different school districts. NONE, and I mean NONE, have a good thing to say about NCLB. Now you try can convince me that this is wrong or that these teachers are all wrong...but all I hear is how NCLB is pushed through at the expense of the program. Not the success of the children. Quote whom you'd like, but the ones with the actual experience disagree.
I'm sure if you Google it you'll see what I'm talking about.
Claydon
11-08-2008, 05:52 PM
In my line of work I work with dozens of school teachers from several different school districts. NONE, and I mean NONE, have a good thing to say about NCLB. Now you try can convince me that this is wrong or that these teachers are all wrong...but all I hear is how NCLB is pushed through at the expense of the program. Not the success of the children. Quote whom you'd like, but the ones with the actual experience disagree.
I'm sure if you Google it you'll see what I'm talking about.
Ok, so Bush had a hand in it, I won't argue this very real fact. However, it was the darling of the liberal left Ted Kennedy that really pushed it in the Senate. Both sides deserve equal credit for this fuck up, just as the democrates have just as much credit for Iraq. They after all continued to fund it for another 2 years.
Point is, when it comes to spending blame the congress as they hold the federal checkbook. Which means YES I put a shit ton of blame on the republican congress. Especially for that pile of manure called the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage.
Ok, so Bush had a hand in it, I won't argue this very real fact. However, it was the darling of the liberal left Ted Kennedy that really pushed it in the Senate. Both sides deserve equal credit for this fuck up, just as the democrates have just as much credit for Iraq. They after all continued to fund it for another 2 years.
Point is, when it comes to spending blame the congress as they hold the federal checkbook. Which means YES I put a shit ton of blame on the republican congress. Especially for that pile of manure called the Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage.
I'm a Centrist at heart....so there's no need to convince me the Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans. Anyone with a brain knows this.
But I've heard so much of this the last week. Obama/Democrats are the anti-christ, muslim lovers (like that actually matters anyways), terrorists, baby-killing abortionists (name of politician that isn't), blah, blah blah.... It's easier to claim your "side" is all good while the other "side" is all evil. Simple-minded ignorance has become the American way. If someone doesn't like Obama's policy...Fine. I can respect that. But all of this Osama/Obama comparisons/anti-christ/anti-abortion hypocrisy makes me sick. Not that this is you Claydon....just what I've had to listen to for several days now. If you actually believe that Obama is the anti-christ or you can't see the hypocrisy of the abortion debate when no prez, including the great GWB, has ever made a legit move to abolish abortion (I guess having a prez that says it's wrong is good enough) then maybe you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Or debate for that matter. But of course, that is un-American. Unless, of course, you're a religious right-wing nutjob. Because if you voted for Obama you're going to Hell. And abortions are blood sacrifices to the demons of hell. At least that's what I've been told this week.....
all right...back to the thread at hand...
/Vent
Claydon
11-08-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm a Centrist at heart....so there's no need to convince me the Democrats are as guilty as the Republicans. Anyone with a brain knows this.
But I've heard so much of this the last week. Obama/Democrats are the anti-christ, muslim lovers (like that actually matters anyways), terrorists, baby-killing abortionists (name of politician that isn't), blah, blah blah.... It's easier to claim your "side" is all good while the other "side" is all evil. Simple-minded ignorance has become the American way. If someone doesn't like Obama's policy...Fine. I can respect that. But all of this Osama/Obama comparisons/anti-christ/anti-abortion hypocrisy makes me sick. Not that this is you Claydon....just what I've had to listen to for several days now. If you actually believe that Obama is the anti-christ or you can't see the hypocrisy of the abortion debate when no prez, including the great GWB, has ever made a legit move to abolish abortion (I guess having a prez that says it's wrong is good enough) then maybe you shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Or debate for that matter. But of course, that is un-American. Unless, of course, you're a religious right-wing nutjob. Because if you voted for Obama you're going to Hell. And abortions are blood sacrifices to the demons of hell. At least that's what I've been told this week.....
all right...back to the thread at hand...
/Vent
Antichrist....no..... Carter part 2? Perhaps (gasp!) Clearly I favored McCain (Palin not so much) in this last cycle but Obama is the president elect, and some of his proposals I do not like at ALL and some I simply have to wait and see if they will be successful. However, if a cure for aids is found during his presidency and he gets the credit, I will fucking vomit.
In my line of work I work with dozens of school teachers from several different school districts. NONE, and I mean NONE, have a good thing to say about NCLB. Now you try can convince me that this is wrong or that these teachers are all wrong...but all I hear is how NCLB is pushed through at the expense of the program. Not the success of the children. Quote whom you'd like, but the ones with the actual experience disagree.
I'm sure if you Google it you'll see what I'm talking about.
My mom has taught elementary school for over 15 years and my ex-GF and her dad are both teachers. The biggest complaint that I have heard from the ex and her dad is that NCLB requires them to teach to the standardized test (Mostly Math and Science).
My overall point is that the left always complains about there not being enough spending and when Bush increased spending by around 50%, they still complain. That alone tells me something.
On paper, yes. But in reality school systems are forced by the state and federal govs to push students through to keep their percentages up.
I personally know three teachers that just this year have had students stand on their desks and cuss them out. The teachers aren't allowed to do anything about because to expel them would place the school system's status in jeopardy due to the requirements of NCLB.
Claydon
11-08-2008, 06:30 PM
On paper, yes. But in reality school systems are forced by the state and federal govs to push students through to keep their percentages up.
I personally know three teachers that just this year have had students stand on their desks and cuss them out. The teachers aren't allowed to do anything about because to expel them would place the school system's status in jeopardy due to the requirements of NCLB.
Sounds like a clear case of the feds not regulating something that should be a state/county function?!
On paper, yes. But in reality school systems are forced by the state and federal govs to push students through to keep their percentages up.
I personally know three teachers that just this year have had students stand on their desks and cuss them out. The teachers aren't allowed to do anything about because to expel them would place the school system's status in jeopardy due to the requirements of NCLB.
That sucks. They seriously need a boot camp style school for kids that refuse to behave in the classroom. Nothing disturbs a classroom like a dipshit that doesn't want to be there.
Claydon
11-08-2008, 06:43 PM
That sucks. They seriously need a boot camp style school for kids that refuse to behave in the classroom. Nothing disturbs a classroom like a dipshit that doesn't want to be there.
Or just expel them.
Bill Paxton
11-08-2008, 06:44 PM
I honestly did not think McCain was that bad, and I don't think Obama is a god send, but two things...
1. Palin was a deal breaker. The thought of her possibly being our president made it so that no matter what McCain said or did I could not take him or his campaign seriously.
2. I don't think Obama's policies are going to be groundbreaking. If our economy improves or goes further into the shitter I don't think it will be because of Obama either way. However, I am incredibly happy to have a different face for our country. We've gone from braindead hick to a very well spoken, likeable leader.
So regardless of what Obama ends up doing I think its a life saver to have an intelligent brother in the house.
Antichrist....no..... Carter part 2? Perhaps (gasp!) Clearly I favored McCain (Palin not so much) in this last cycle but Obama is the president elect, and some of his proposals I do not like at ALL and some I simply have to wait and see if they will be successful. However, if a cure for aids is found during his presidency and he gets the credit, I will fucking vomit.
I'll be there to hold your hair back when you vomit...
Claydon
11-08-2008, 10:50 PM
I'll be there to hold your hair back when you vomit...
As I have done for you my friend, these many years, and in different parts of the pacific. Ahhhh the spectre, the spirit of carmel, and when you vomited upon the head of another man.
...and when you vomited upon the head of another man.
Is there any other way?
Or just expel them.
That would be my thoughts too. But obviously not the Super's. A student has to damn near commit murder before any serious discipline is met out. I know several teachers, students, and reporters that all have basically the same thing to say.
Le Goat
11-10-2008, 02:19 PM
http://jj.am/gallery/d/66503-1/Lick_it.jpg
Abnormal
11-20-2008, 08:00 PM
No, Obama can't fix the economy because he is just one man in the middle of a lot of forces at play.
gillkonam
01-09-2009, 03:55 AM
My mom has taught elementary school for over 15 years and my ex-GF and her dad are both teachers. The biggest complaint that I have heard from the ex and her dad is that NCLB requires them to teach to the standardized test (Mostly Math and Science).
My overall point is that the left always complains about there not being enough spending and when Bush increased spending by around 50%, they still complain. That alone tells me something.
Its not the spending, its how its spent. I have family who teach the kids under these "standards" and I teach them when they get into college (mentally starved). It sucks nuts and completely ruins the teaching classroom. The sad fact is that the weight of "bad teachers" is the 10% to the 90% that is "irresponsible and uninterested parents who are unwilling to acknowledge what they need to do." Most good teachers will tell you that social promotion was a wrong-headed approach and most didn't follow it... this was the major argument against the system. So what have we instead? The same social promotion via suit by parents (raise enough stink), and disaffected dropouts. All this has done is completely bureaucratize things, which I think is the way to destroy the roots of our future economy, i.e. who are going to pay off all these fiscal shenanigans. Its a long discussion, but I can appreciate someone on what appears to be the other side of the fence speaking frankly about it from a greater perspective of knowledge. We need to establish a categorization process that helps students achieve on the level they are at, and that allows technically-minded students to shift away from the college route that has been the nascent demand for so many years in this country. You don't have to leave them behind: just put them into a different row. Perhaps these can be our new green-collar trainees, and I can tell you that there are going to be a ton of older and out-of-work engineers and technicians who will be honored to embrace teaching interested pupils in the coming years. Get us fighting for what needs to be done.
By the by, I know that part of this whole NCLB enterprise was meant to break the Teacher's Union (not that I or my family share much love for them) by bringing on the School Voucher wishlist that was the Neo-Liberal Freedmanite dream (yeah, here comes that other side of the field thing ):o.
nuclearjew
01-19-2009, 10:51 PM
i93BJiYLaj8
nobody
01-19-2009, 11:53 PM
My younger brother is a HS Math teacher, he says the worst thing the government has ever done to the school system was NCLB, that was Teddy's brainchild wasn't it? Heaven forbid we should hold Teddy accountable for anything though, isn't it? Let's ask Mary Jo Kopechne, oh wait, she's unavailable for comment ...
Rover
01-20-2009, 12:57 AM
10 hours and 50 minutes!
I can't wait for everything to stop being Bush's fault.
freegood
01-20-2009, 01:41 AM
Instead 80% of the things will still be Bush's fault...
mongo
01-20-2009, 01:50 AM
that's part of the problem. obama lovers will use him as a scapegoat for years to come. (too bad bush isn't allowed to use clinton as a scapegoat)
Rover
01-20-2009, 01:57 AM
Instead 80% of the things will still be Bush's fault...Just as long as you give him 80% of the credit for the things that go right.
freegood
01-20-2009, 03:13 AM
that's part of the problem. obama lovers will use him as a scapegoat for years to come. (too bad bush isn't allowed to use clinton as a scapegoat)
Bush's apologists did...A LOT. See...N. Korea, dot.com bust, lying about blowjobs as a stain on the presidency, weakening the military, dumping 9/11 on Bubba.
Both presidencies seem wasted. Clinton had an impeachment trial to wade through. Cheney had one too few a stroke and we got what we got....
Just as long as you give him 80% of the credit for the things that go right.
Maybe in 10-20 years after everything is said and done. Not much I like right now, but who knows?
I'm not balls deep in love with Obama, but he has several legacy caliber issues on his plate at the moment, and ultimately Obama's successes will paint a nicer picture on Bush. He can end the shit that began on Bush's watch or continue it.
Worst case is he causes even more problems.
BTW...history is not on Pres. Elect Obama's side for fixing asset and housing bust induced recessions. This could possibly take several years, if ever...
nobody
01-20-2009, 04:01 AM
BTW...history is not on Pres. Elect Obama's side for fixing asset and housing bust induced recessions. This could possibly take several years, if ever...
...or another Ronald Reagan (which we DON'T have!)
Hanover Fist
01-20-2009, 10:55 AM
Who becomes insolvent first, the US or Britain? I'm going to say Britain because their economy is so much smaller and their debts are such a larger portion of it. Even Britain is basing their hopes of survival on the Obamessiah, not much to hang your hat on if you ask me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/iainmartin/4295219/Gordon-Brown-brings-Britain-to-the-edge-of-bankruptcy.html
Gordon Brown brings Britain to the edge of bankruptcy
Iain Martin says the Prime Minister hasn't 'saved the world' and now faces disgrace in the history books
By Iain Martin
Last Updated: 8:36AM GMT 20 Jan 2009
Comments 161 | Comment on this article
They don't know what they're doing, do they? With every step taken by the Government as it tries frantically to prop up the British banking system, this central truth becomes ever more obvious.
Yesterday marked a new low for all involved, even by the standards of this crisis. Britons woke to news of the enormity of the fresh horrors in store. Despite all the sophistry and outdated boom-era terminology from experts, I think a far greater number of people than is imagined grasp at root what is happening here.
The country stands on the precipice. We are at risk of utter humiliation, of London becoming a Reykjavik on Thames and Britain going under. Thanks to the arrogance, hubristic strutting and serial incompetence of the Government and a group of bankers, the possibility of national bankruptcy is not unrealistic.
The political impact will be seismic; anger will rage. The haunted looks on the faces of those in supporting roles, such as the Chancellor, suggest they have worked out that a tragedy is unfolding here. Gordon Brown is engaged no longer in a standard battle for re-election; instead he is fighting to avoid going down in history disgraced completely.
This catastrophe happened on his watch, no matter how much he now opportunistically beats up on bankers. He turned on the fountain of cheap money and encouraged the country to swim in it. House prices rose, debt went through the roof and the illusion won elections. Throughout, Brown boasted of the beauty of his regulatory structure, when those in charge of it were failing to ask the most basic questions of financial institutions. The same bankers Brown now claims to be angry with, he once wooed, travelling to the City to give speeches praising their "financial innovation".
Does the Prime Minister realise the likely implications when the country joins the dots? He has never been wild on shouldering blame, so I doubt it. But Brown is a historian. He should know that when a nation has put all its chips on red and the ball lands on black, the person who made the call is responsible. Neville Chamberlain discovered this in May 1940 with the German invasion of France.
We're some way from a similar event. But do not underestimate the gravity of the emergency and potential for disgrace.
The Government's bail-out of the banks in October with £37 billion of taxpayers' money was supposed to have "saved the world", according to the PM, but now it is clear that it has not even saved the banks. Our money kept the show on the road for only three months.
As the Liberal Democrats' Treasury spokesman Vince Cable asks: where has the £37 billion gone? The answer, as Cable knows, is that it has disappeared down the plug hole.
It is finally dawning on the Government that the liabilities of the British banks grew to be so vast in the boom years that they now eclipse the entire economy. Unfortunately, the Treasury is pledged to honour those
liabilities because it has guaranteed not to let a British bank go down. RBS has liabilities of £1.8 trillion, three times annual UK government spending, against assets of £1.9 trillion. But after the events of the past year, I wager most taxpayers will believe the true picture is worse.
Meanwhile, the assets are falling in value. This matters, because post-nationalisation these liabilities are now yours and mine.
And they come piled on top of the rocketing national debt, charitably put at £630 billion, or 43 per cent of GDP. The true figure is much higher because the Government has used off-balance sheet accounting to hide commitments such as PFI projects.
Add to that record consumer indebtedness and Britain becomes extremely vulnerable. The markets have worked this out ahead of the politicians, as usual, and are wondering what to do next. If they decide our nation is a basket case, they will make it so.
The PM and the Chancellor , both looking a year older every day, tell us that for their next trick they will buy more bank shares, create a giant insurance scheme for bad debt, pledge to honour liabilities without limit, cross their fingers and hope it all works. The phrase "bottomless pit" springs to mind for a reason: that is what they have designed.
In this gloom, the Prime Minister has but one slender hope: that somehow, by force of personality, the new President Obama engineers a rapid American recovery restoring global confidence, energising the markets and making us all forget this bad dream.
Obama is talented but he is not a magician. Instead, Gordon Brown's nightmare, in which we are all trapped, is going to get much worse.
redsox39
01-20-2009, 11:37 AM
What I don't get is where are all the Democrats and Liberals who were telling us that a huge Tax Refund for everyone doesn't work when Bush did it. Now Obama wants to do the same thing, and $850 Billion is totally cool?
What I don't get is where are all the Democrats and Liberals who were telling us that a huge Tax Refund for everyone doesn't work when Bush did it. Now Obama wants to do the same thing, and $850 Billion is totally cool?
Tax refunds are a plug in the dam. They buy you time, not growth.
Obama is going to spend $850bn or $1tr...whatever. It isn't going to work and the media is simply going to say that we didn't spend enough.
If you want a preview of the future, read this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html
Rover
01-20-2009, 11:39 PM
Largest Inauguration Day decline in the stock market in history.
DJ lost 4%
Nasdaq lost 5%
S&P lost 5%
Oil gained 10%.
Obama is good for Big Oil profits. I kinda like the fact that there is absolutely nothing that can be blamed on Republicans.
Tax refunds are a plug in the dam. They buy you time, not growth.
Obama is going to spend $850bn or $1tr...whatever. It isn't going to work and the media is simply going to say that we didn't spend enough.
If you want a preview of the future, read this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122938932478509075.html
I agree that "stimulus plans" are wrong. But one can't blame any of this on just Ds or Rs. We've done this to ourselves as a nation. The government, the people...none of us are without blame. Greed has caused us to shit in our dogbox and now it's time to pay the piper. Obama will receive blame for things that were going on long before any of us knew his name...but he'll probably receive credit for things that aren't his doing either. But this quick fix of blaming it all on Obama is laughable.
Largest Inauguration Day decline in the stock market in history.
DJ lost 4%
Nasdaq lost 5%
S&P lost 5%
Oil gained 10%.
Obama is good for Big Oil profits. I kinda like the fact that there is absolutely nothing that can be blamed on Republicans.
You're a fucking idiot. Kill yourself.
freegood
01-21-2009, 12:44 AM
Who becomes insolvent first, the US or Britain? I'm going to say Britain because their economy is so much smaller and their debts are such a larger portion of it. Even Britain is basing their hopes of survival on the Obamessiah, not much to hang your hat on if you ask me.
Ireland and Iceland are close by. Germany's largest bank is also massively overlevaged (50:1) to the point where it'd take 80% of the country's GDP to bail them out.
Europe is as fucked as we are, but for those keeping count, we fucked them over with AIG printing up CDS left and right..
...or another Ronald Reagan (which we DON'T have!)
If you exhume his urn and rub it, you can get three wishes if he appears and calls you mommy.
nobody
01-21-2009, 01:09 AM
If you exhume his urn and rub it, you can get three wishes if he appears and calls you mommy.
Woohoo! I'm heading to Ca! :rolleyes:
Hanover Fist
01-21-2009, 03:01 PM
http://i39.tinypic.com/df7tv.jpg
I agree that "stimulus plans" are wrong. But one can't blame any of this on just Ds or Rs. We've done this to ourselves as a nation. The government, the people...none of us are without blame. Greed has caused us to shit in our dogbox and now it's time to pay the piper. Obama will receive blame for things that were going on long before any of us knew his name...but he'll probably receive credit for things that aren't his doing either. But this quick fix of blaming it all on Obama is laughable.
I agree that we are to blame for our present situation.
We want low taxes, yet we want lots of free programs and services from the government at the same time. Well, the money has to come from somewhere so we need to either accept that we are going to pay higher taxes, which leads to less growth and less money in our pockets, or accept that the government can't provide free services to everyone, forcing us to pay for our own shit.
As you point out, both parties share their own portion of the blame. But aren't they really just giving us, the consumer, what we ask for? Shouldn't we look in the mirror and despise what is staring back at us?
I haven't blamed anything on Obama. If I was going to start pointing fingers at politicians, I would point them at: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, LBJ, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Tom DeLay, Henery Waxman, Peter Stark and all of the congressmen/women that changed their vote on Bush's Medicare Part D plan.
Claydon
01-21-2009, 09:24 PM
I haven't blamed anything on Obama. If I was going to start pointing fingers at politicians, I would point them at: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, LBJ, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Tom DeLay, Henery Waxman, Peter Stark and all of the congressmen/women that changed their vote on Bush's Medicare Part D plan.
Post
The two of them are responsible for FRE and FNM. But our problems run deeper than the GSEs. Every President since Hoover has grown the size of the federal government. If Obama can break that trend, I will become a believer...
But changing Washington is easier said than done.
EDIT: I forgot to post this before:
Let's Stimulate Private Risk Taking
Tax cuts are the way to nudge capital toward productive uses.
By ALBERTO ALESINA (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=ALBERTO+ALESINA&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND) and LUIGI ZINGALES (http://online.wsj.com/search/search_center.html?KEYWORDS=LUIGI+ZINGALES&ARTICLESEARCHQUERY_PARSER=bylineAND)
In virtually all economics classes, including those taught by the many excellent economists on the Obama team, the idea of government spending as an engine for growth is not a popular topic. Yet despite their skepticism of Keynesianism in the classroom, when it comes to public policy, these economists happily endorse a large stimulus package that could bring our deficit to 10% of GDP. Why?
One explanation is that these economists think this recession is an extraordinary one. In normal recessions -- the argument goes -- an increase in discretionary government spending is unnecessary and even counterproductive. But in the event that a recession becomes a depression, a Keynesian stimulus package might work.
There are certainly economic models that show how government spending can shift the economy from a bad equilibrium (where people do not search for jobs because they do not expect to find them, and firms do not invest because they do not expect to sell), to a good equilibrium (where people search for jobs, and firms invest and generate demand for their goods).
But this particular recession is unique not in its dimensions, but in its sources. First, it is the result of a financial crisis that severely affected stock-market valuations. The bad equilibrium did not originate in the labor market, but in the credit market, where investors are reluctant to lend to risky firms. This reluctance is making it difficult for these firms to refinance their debt, forcing them to default on their credit, further validating investors' fear. Thus, the problem is how to increase investors' willingness to take risk. It's unclear how the proposed stimulus package would help inspire investors to do so.
The second reason this recession is unusual is that it was caused in large part by a significant current-account imbalance due to the low savings rate of Americans (families and government). Even assuming that more public spending would increase private consumption -- a big if -- such a measure would cause even more imbalance.
So how do we stimulate the economy without increasing the already large current-account deficit? It's not easy, but here is an idea: Create the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years.
If we fear this is not enough, we can temporarily increase the size of the capital loss that is deductible against ordinary income. This will reduce the downside of new investments and increase the upside.
More savings need to be invested, and firms need an incentive to invest in order to help aggregate demand in the short term and promote long-term growth. The best way to do this is to make all capital expenditures and research and development investments done in 2009 fully tax deductible in the current fiscal year.
A large temporary tax incentive may be just enough to jolt investors from their current paralysis to take action. Such a switch will also be fueled by the temporary capital-gains tax cut mentioned above, which will motivate people to move their savings from money-market funds to stocks, increasing valuations, investments and confidence.
Many are concerned about what we can do to help the poor weather this crisis. Unlike during the Great Depression, we have an unemployment subsidy that protects the poor from the most severe consequences of this recession. If we want to further protect them, it is better to extend this unemployment subsidy than to invest in hasty public projects. Furthermore, tax cuts have a much better effect on job creation than highway rehabilitation.
No doubt, it is much easier to sell the public and Congress a plan for more public works than tax cuts, particularly while Main Street despises Wall Street -- with some good reason. But the role of a good economic team is to courageously propose the right economic policy, even when it is unpopular. The role of a president is to sell it politically, as real change we can believe in.
Mr. Alesina is a professor of economics at Harvard. Mr. Zingales is a professor of finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business.
Hanover Fist
01-23-2009, 01:29 PM
Is anyone left who believes the bank bailout was a good thing?
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/163151/Billions-of-Taxpayer-Dollars-Flushed-Down-John-Thains-%2435K-Commode
Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Flushed Down John Thain's $35K Commode
Posted Jan 23, 2009 01:36pm EST by Aaron Task
Related: BAC, GS, JPM, XLF, MS, ^GSPC, ^DJI
Just when you thought the greed and avarice on Wall Street couldn't possibly get any worse, Thursday brought revelations of John Thain's disgusting behavior. The imperial CEOs of the late 1990's-early 2000s - Enron's Key Lay, WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers and Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski - got nothing on this guy when it comes to pillaging from shareholders.
But Thain's abuse of U.S. taxpayers puts him in a far worse category.
In mid-December, at the same time Bank of America's Ken Lewis was begging Washington DC for what became $20 billion more in bailout money, Thain secretly approved an accelerated bonus pool of $15 billion for top Merrill employees. (Oh the irony: the $15 billion bonus pool essentially matched Merrill fourth-quarter loss, which is what sent Lewis into a panic in the first place.)
All other of Thain's sins pale in comparison to this dastardly act, which New York State AG Andrew Cuomo is investigating, but let's list them anyway:
* Grossly understating the extent of Merrill's potential losses from Bank of America - assuming the latter firm's stance is to be believed: "The facts are that [Merrill's] fourth quarter was way beyond anything they said would happen," BofA spokesman Robert Stickler told The WSJ.
* Neglecting to personally tell Ken Lewis about Merrill's $15.3 billion loss, and going ahead with a pre-planned ski trip when the losses came to light.
* Stumping for his own bonus late last year before backing down in the face of public outrage.
* Spending $1.2 million of Merrill shareholder's money to redecorate his office in early 2008, including $87,000 for an area rug, $28,000 on curtains (shades of Kozlowski), 15,000 for a sofa, and $35,000 for a "commode on legs," etc.
Of course, Thain is innocent of any crime until proven guilty - and we certainly hope he gets his day in court.
As for Ken Lewis, whether he was the victim of Thain's fraud or his own incompetence, letting Thain go really should be his last act at BofA.
Hanover Fist
01-24-2009, 12:46 AM
Damn this was pretty interesting to watch. After seeing this I think maybe Peter Schiff should probably become the Treasury Secretary instead of the guy that can't remember to pay his taxes. I guess he's having the last laugh now, this makes a lot of conservatives look pretty bad too.
Worst quote of the clip "The subprime market is tiny"
Ben Stein looks really really really dumb in this clip
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0a_1232747931
God damn this is almost good enough to watch twice.
Gary_Busey
01-24-2009, 12:54 AM
Guess he should've let someone in power know.