Go Obama! - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2009, 06:08 PM   #166
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Where's the capital investment going to come from this time around? American consumers are 14 trillion dollars in debt.
Americans are saving more. Not all Americans as individuals are in debt. Obviously the government should cut spending and freeze the corporate tax rates as they are so the investors feel that they aren't going to get punished with higher taxes in the near future. It would send the right signal that would bring foreign investment (what America relies on) in a big way and domestic investment would ramp up. This means tax receipts would increase with the increased business activity. Depleting social security in the form of tax credits is just a subsidy for people who don't pay tax and a cynical ploy to buy future votes.

Companies that don't get sales and don't get investment are the ones that have to disappear. The companies that were doing it right all along would grow and take over those markets creating new jobs to replace the old ones. All recessions are is a way of deleveraging until enough people feel confident in reinvesting and spending. This is not likely to happen if individuals & corporations are in huge debt. Government debt also has to be in control because if it's not taxes will have to increase enormously. FDIC has had to ask for large increases in insurance premiums because of the effect of failed banks. I could see the government quickly ramping up taxes if necessary to close the deficit. There's lots of waste in government and yet bills with pork items are still being passed despite campaign promises. The federal government is doing sweet fuck all to eliminate waste.

There is no special way to fake growth or fake investment confidence. It has to be real. The only role the government really has is to keep people from starving and offering training where applicable. They also need to aim for balanced budgets to keep foreign investor confidence. Americans have been spending more than they have for a long time and now they have to do the opposite. Once debt goes down and defaults decrease then banks can lend with more confidence and with lower rates. Saving is an important buffer for all individuals. Who wants to burn a CD without a good buffer?

Foreign investors look at the U.S. as the gold standard since it's open for business more than most large countries in the world (for now). They invest (lent) money to the U.S. and the U.S. spent it on consumer goods by inlarge. All Americans can do to pay it back is to continue spending less than they make (AKA pay down debt and save an emergency fund). Once they've paid sufficent enough that their budget has more room for spending (as opposed to principle and interest payments) then a spike in spending will occur. Everything else is trying to avoid reality.

Also passing debt onto the government deleverages the private sector but those same taxpayers will still have to deal with it. The government either has to cut spending or raise taxes. The debt levels have to go down no matter what. Stimulus is just taking money from one part of the world economy and throwing it on another. There is no net positive increase in production from this action. Most stimulus money injected into banks was saved. They are saving because they have toxic mortgages that they try and keep off the balance sheet in private equity firms. Those toxic mortgages are not going away. The most virtuous thing a person with this kind of mortgage can do is to have a budget diet and focus on throwing as much pay at the balance. This makes the asset have less of a need to be considered "toxic". Banks can't lend money if they go bankrupt. The subunit of the economy is the individual and that can't be escaped.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-06-2009, 06:27 PM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperU2 View Post
We could sell arms like in the 80's. Worked wonders.
It worked wonders in standing up to the Soviet Union but left a legacy of debt that is now getting so big it can't be ignored. Also democrats in congress resisted spending cuts during the period until they were ousted in '94. George Bush Sr. increased taxes (despite his campaign slogan "no new taxes") with a deal that democrats in congress would cut spending to meet him halfway towards a balanced budget. They even spent faster than the laffer curve resultant tax receipts that followed Reagan's tax cuts. Bill Clinton enters at this point. During the boom that he inherited congress under Republicans (Newt Gingrich) pushed Clinton to go along with the spending restraint and the only balanced budget in eons occurred. Currently the military can't stay at this size if spending cut options in other government departments are ignored. Even governments can go bankrupt. Something has to give.

Reagan's tax reductions paid for themselves to some extent but as you can see in the below videos the rates are too low now to pay for themselves without spending cuts. Tax increases are unpopular and spending cuts are unpopular so the real solution is having political will to do the right thing even if it pisses off all the special interest groups. The real question is how many politicians have this kind of spine? Maybe Jindal.

YouTube - The Laffer Curve, Part I: Understanding the Theory

YouTube - The Laffer Curve, Part II: Reviewing the Evidence

YouTube - The Laffer Curve, Part III: Dynamic Scoring
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 03-06-2009, 06:34 PM   #168
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Think legalizing drugs would do it?
__________________
HyperU2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2009, 04:03 PM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:18 AM
wink

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-11-2009, 07:26 PM   #170
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:18 AM
OMG, totally, diamond! I mean, the economy was, like, totally on the up and up when Bush left!
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 03-11-2009, 09:48 PM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
OMG, totally, diamond! I mean, the economy was, like, totally on the up and up when Bush left!
...


Quote:
Obama, Geithner Get Low Grades From Economists Article

By PHIL IZZO
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.


Economists Give Obama an "F"
3:13
In striking contrast to President Obama's popularity with the public, a new Wall Street Journal survey of economists gives the president and his treasury secretary failing grades.
WSJ's Phil Izzo and Kelly Evans discuss.

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.



Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.

However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."

Mr. Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's plans Feb. 10, but he offered few details, and stocks sank on the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down almost 20% since the announcement, as multiple issues have weighed on investors' confidence. The Treasury secretary has since appeared before Congress and offered more specifics but has said action on key parts of the plan still is weeks away.

About the Survey
The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 54 economists throughout the year. Broad surveys on more than 10 major economic indicators are conducted every month. Once a year, economists are ranked on how well their forecasts have fared. For prior installments of the surveys, see: WSJ.com/Economist.



"We have taken an unprecedented level of action toward economic recovery, accomplishing in weeks what took other countries years to do," Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said. "While Wall Street and investors were disappointed when they didn't get a sweeping bank bailout, we've laid out a plan to stabilize the financial system while protecting the taxpayer and ensuring government funds are spent wisely. This crisis was years in the making, and it will take time to solve."

Treasury has started implementing a housing-recovery plan, moved forward on a joint program with the Fed to boost consumer lending, and has begun stress-testing banks in an effort to determine which institutions will need additional capital from the government. The results of the stress tests won't be known for a few weeks. Meanwhile, a key part of the plan -- a public-private partnership to take toxic assets off bank balance sheets -- remains in the planning stages.

The economists' negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion. In December, before Mr. Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration's economic team was better than the departing Bush team. However, Mr. Geithner's latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January.

Mr. Geithner, who is relying on a skeleton crew of advisers in the Treasury Department as the administration struggles to make key appointments to his staff, is encountering the same problems as his predecessor in dealing with the complexities of a bailout plan. Richard DeKaser of Woodley Park Research, who gave high marks to Messrs. Obama and Geithner, admitted disappointment in the delay in action but said he appreciated the magnitude of the task. "I don't know what's holding it up," he said. "But I'm assuming it's not just because they're hitting the golf course."

There was widespread initial support for the appointment of Mr. Geithner, who as president of the New York Federal Reserve had been on the front lines of the crisis since it erupted. However, in the ensuing weeks Mr. Geithner has had to deal with tax troubles and criticism from those opposed to any bailouts as well as those who think the government needs to be doing more.

Meanwhile, the economists surveyed this month predict that the economy will shed another 2.8 million jobs over the next 12 months as the unemployment rate climbs to 9.3% by December, up from the 8.1% rate recorded in February. Economists also see nearly a one-in-six chance that the U.S. will fall into a depression, defined as a decline in per-person GDP or consumption by 10% or more.

"We just keep moving the date [when the recession will end] out, hoping at some point in time we will be able to move the date back in," said Diane Swonk of Mesirow Financial.

The economists didn't just single out the U.S. for criticism; 70% of participants said the response of governments around the world to the global recession has been inadequate. "The Europeans or Japanese don't seem to be doing near enough to kickstart their economies," said Nariman Behravesh of IHS Global Insight. "It could be we've done all the right things, but the rest of the world goes down the tubes."

Despite the growing criticism elsewhere, the respondents were broadly supportive of the Fed. More than 85% of the economists agreed that the central bank's proliferating lending programs are well-designed, well-executed and helping the economy. And while grades for Mr. Bernanke remain off of their 2007 highs, the average has stabilized after falling as low as 69 in the November survey.

Amid all the gloom, there is a bright spot: Four-fifths of the economists said now is a good time to buy equities, especially if the investor has a long-term view.

Write to Phil Izzo at philip.izzo@wsj.com

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved



Dow Jones Reprints - Reprint and Permission Service for the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Newswires, and MarketWatch
More In Economy
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 11:26 AM   #172
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Short term criticism may receive long term praise.. the whole article is complaining of the speed, not what they will actually implement.

Quote:
Richard DeKaser of Woodley Park Research, who gave high marks to Messrs. Obama and Geithner, admitted disappointment in the delay in action but said he appreciated the magnitude of the task. "I don't know what's holding it up," he said. "But I'm assuming it's not just because they're hitting the golf course."
I would be assuming the same..
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 02:04 PM   #173
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:18 AM
Time will tell, and I have a dollar to a donut-this plan will not work.

I will be happy to revisit this issue in 9-12 months-to see where the economy is at that time.

We can then bump this thread again.


<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 02:18 PM   #174
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
Time will tell, and I have a dollar to a donut-this plan will not work.

I will be happy to revisit this issue in 9-12 months-to see where the economy is at that time.

We can then bump this thread again.


<>



rooting for failure.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:38 PM   #175
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
rooting for failure.
It is shameful-isn't it?



Quote:
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:51 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:18 AM
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:52 PM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It is shameful-isn't it?


i think you need to re-read that article a little more closely.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 03:53 PM   #178
The Male
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 65,797
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It is shameful-isn't it?
Two wrongs make a right in the state of Arizona? Or is this some Mormon voodoo I was ignorant of?
__________________


Now.
LemonMelon is online now  
Old 03-12-2009, 04:12 PM   #179
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Carlisle PA
Posts: 818
Local Time: 04:18 AM
This will never pass but the mere suggestion of it is a disgrace.

Senators slam plan for wounded vets to use private insurance - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.

But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

Murray used that blunt terminology when she told Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. Her remarks came during a hearing before the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about the 2010 budget.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.

The groups also cited an increase in "third-party collections" estimated in the 2010 budget proposal -- something they said could be achieved only if the Veterans Administration started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

Charging for service-related injuries would violate "a sacred trust," Veterans of Foreign Wars spokesman Joe Davis said. Davis said the move would risk private health care for veterans and their families by potentially maxing out benefits paying for costly war injury treatments.

A second senator, North Carolina Republican Richard Burr, said he agreed that the idea should not go forward.

"I think you will give that up" as a revenue stream if it is included in this April's budget, Burr said.

Murray said she'd already discussed her concerns with the secretary the previous week.

"I believe that veterans with service-connected injuries have already paid by putting their lives on the line," Murray said in her remarks. "I don't think we should nickel and dime them for their care."

Eleven of the most prominent veterans organizations have been lobbying Congress to oppose the idea. In the letter sent last week to the president, the groups warned that the idea "is wholly unacceptable and a total abrogation of our government's moral and legal responsibility to the men and women who have sacrificed so much."

The groups included The American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

At the time, a White House spokesman would neither confirm nor deny the option was being considered.
__________________
HyperU2 is offline  
Old 03-12-2009, 05:23 PM   #180
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 03:18 AM
Quote:
No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama voicing their opposition to the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration.
Something sounds very peculiar about this...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com