Almost half way in the first 100 days, how are they doing?

[TexanOkie]

The difference is that elected officials serve at the will of the people that elected them. Currently the government is not stewards of individuals' taxes if the individual deems a non-profit worthy of that money first. The taxes on that money are then not due to the state and the money that would have been due to the state is given directly to the non-profit. This may be good much of the time, but other times not so much. (There are bazillions of good, bad, and ugly non-profits in San Francisco).

Yes, but then wouldn't the more appropriate course of action be bumping up the standards for incorporation as a non-profit? Then they could potentially get more money from corporations who aren't truly addressing any charitable or humanitarian cause while still allowing an individual freedom and incentive to direct their money where they see fit. Putting incentive caps on giving is merely a step in posturing the government as the sole benevolent and beneficient way to care for the poor or disadvantaged and is just one more step in the "war on position" (described as the "Culture War" by Pat Buchanan), as outlined in Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary theory based on distinction of political and civil society and the theory that cultural hegemony must be disturbed if capitalism is ever to loose it's foothold on society.*

* The right did not dream up some concept of "culture war" to frighten people. All we did was point out elements of Gramsci's Marxist's critiques that have found themselves engrained in many of the factions of the revolutionary and intellectual left.

[michaelskis]

It seems like Michealskis trolling poll will disappoint him as it mimics the national polls.

I am actually surprised that the poll does not lean even more to things getting better! As for trolling, explain how this is trolling and your anti-republican (future of GOP) is not?

If is a free nation and everyone is entitled to their opinion and I hope people express it, regardless if they agree with me or if they are wrong.

[CJC]

Yes, but then wouldn't the more appropriate course of action be bumping up the standards for incorporation as a non-profit? Then they could potentially get more money from corporations who aren't truly addressing any charitable or humanitarian cause while still allowing an individual freedom and incentive to direct their money where they see fit. Putting incentive caps on giving is merely a step in posturing the government as the sole benevolent and beneficient way to care for the poor or disadvantaged and is just one more step in the "war on position" (described as the "Culture War" by Pat Buchanan), as outlined in Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary theory based on distinction of political and civil society and the theory that cultural hegemony must be disturbed if capitalism is ever to loose it's foothold on society.*

* The right did not dream up some concept of "culture war" to frighten people. All we did was point out elements of Gramsci's Marxist's critiques that have found themselves engrained in many of the factions of the revolutionary and intellectual left.

Sure, what you propose could work just fine and I'd be fine with that - but (for example) there would be some incredible battles over whether religious organizations would maintain their status for the entire organization. Do we want to start that battle?

I'd prefer to keep non-profits as non-profits, regardless of what they do, without bringing politics into the incorporation process (there are already quite a few different types). Everyone gets treated equally (with regard to benefits from the government - no other benefits that they currently receive would change) without regard to the individual beliefs or activities of the organization.

[boiker]

Actually, I think it is the wars that ballooned the budget more than anything, but which, IMO, were necessary. However, I think better management and fiscal responsibility could have reduced those numbers, especially in regards to Iraqi infrastructure. And George H.W. didn't really need to raise taxes. Things were naturally getting better and the deficit would have been erased in Clinton's term anyway without the tax hikes, because the economy was continually booming since the Reagan years and people were making more and thus government was receiving more. Sure, the surplus may have taken a year or two more to be achieved, but it probably would have gotten done.

We did have a moderate recession in the 1990-1992 timeframe. I thought GHWB needed to raise taxes because there simply was no other option and the first Iraq war exasperated our continuing budget deficets.

Last time I checked, 12 x 52 = 624, so even if it is $12 every week, it's well under $1000 a year. Also, last time I checked, $12 was for the average American worker. Well, I'm not the average American worker, I'm an intern, so I'm expecting well less, unless Barack is really giving me the same amount back as someone making $50,000.

Your math is correct. You will be getting about $600. The married couples will be getting around $1000. It's not graduated by income.

..... give the money to the American people who need it more and know how to spend it better than the government, maybe the economy would actually recover.

Giving government money to any entity is some form of wealth redistribution. You are a strong advocate of "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps". Are you sure this is what you meant? Maybe you meant lower taxes rather than issuing a signficant bailout for you and me?

The government just needs to learn how to leave things alone. Everytime they tinker with something, things just end up getting worse.

They better not issue you, me, companies or anyone else any tax breaks, tax increases, bailouts or any other money. Let's move them to the sideline where they are not part of the private economy. I'd be fine with this, but we better get ready for a VERY bumpy ride in transition.

The tax cuts aren't working, because there are none.

The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. They are set to expire, as Bush intended, well after he left office so that the next President/Congress could review, reduce, extend existing policies, or increase taxes.

The problem is, we haven't had a significantly-sized tax rebate in a long time.

I got one last year, $2,400 was my tax rebate/stimulus check. I thought of that as fairly signficant. But that is government interference in the private economy. We don't need them mucking stuff like that up. Or do we?

And letting the Bush tax cuts "expire" will only make things worse.

It will be worse in that any amounts earned in the top tax bracket would be subject to $3 additional in taxes for every $100 earned. --This is private, individual income, not business income. Raising taxes on business income could certainly be a bigger issue than on extremely high individual earners. Individual earners don't directly create jobs with their private income, however businesses certainly can with thier business income.

Maybe instead of the government writing itself a check for $700B, they could write it to us. But no, that'd be too simple and it'd empower the people too much...can't have that.

So you do want the government to issue you a check for being a citizen? Isn't that wealth redistribution? It had to come from somewhere. i do caution that when the money gets issued directly to the consumer it will have the effect of price increases. As of now, it has been issued to banks who are not issuing it to consumers (as they were intended to do). So for now, inflation is stifiled. However, when the money does get released, be prepared for some signficant price and *hopefully* wage increases. Otherwise, the consumer may be in a more dire situation than we are now.

And I think there are rules in place which prevent the tax cuts from being permanent. Or they may have structured them that way because they didn't forsee this recession and thought a surplus could be achieved some day. But really, I don't know. Why don't you ask George Bush why he didn't strucutre it that way in the first place?

You're exactly right. This round of taxcuts was given a sunset date because it was envisioned that the economy would continue a good pace of recovery out of 2002-03. However, things change the expiration date gives the current law makers a chance to make policy in light of today's circumstances, not the ones of 2002-03.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I am actually surprised that the poll does not lean even more to things getting better! As for trolling, explain how this is trolling and your anti-republican (future of GOP) is not?

If is a free nation and everyone is entitled to their opinion and I hope people express it, regardless if they agree with me or if they are wrong.

Only applying your own standard.

PM Maister and ask him how many times I have asked to have a thread shut down to dampen someone else's opinion. As a matter of fact, I think your ignorance should be heard LOUD AND CLEAR.

[wahday]

The tax cuts aren't working, because there are none. There's nothing to evaluate here. The problem is, we haven't had a significantly-sized tax rebate in a long time.

You mean like since last year? There was a tax rebate available in 2008 for people filing their 2007 taxes. It was in response to the looming financial crisis which was publicly acknowledged by the Bush administration as recently as January 2008. You can link to the IRS page that explains it here: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...179181,00.html

It was something like $600/filer plus $300 per dependent child. Percentages changed if you earned over $75k and ended if you earned over $87k.

The other Bush tax rebates were in effect from 2001 to 2003. That's a lot of tax rebate action within an 8 year period intended to stimulate the economy and spur economic growth, but clearly, it was not a long term solution that had much efficacy or we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

These rebates are also on top of EGGTRA, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 that is set to sunset in 2011.

So, we have had both tax cuts and tax rebates over the past 8 years. It seems to me that if that is not doing the trick, another strategy is required.

Who are you concerned about? The government's needs or the American families that have to foot the bill? At the end of the day, I side with the American people.

Well, me too. And most of us earn less than $250k a year. Under the proposed plan, I would receive $1000 back. That's fine with me and I probably make a lot less than many in this forum.

Maybe instead of the government writing itself a check for $700B, they could write it to us. But no, that'd be too simple and it'd empower the people too much...can't have that.

My personal opinion is that, with issues like the recession, if the solution were simple, we probably would have jumped on it a long time ago. The reality, I think, is that the global economic spiral we are experiencing is far from "simple."

Furthermore, as an informal discussion here in another cyburbia forum suggested (can't find it now, though), most people are likely to take this money and pay off mounting debt, which is NOT the intended "stimulation" that rebates or otherwise giving money to the consumer is intended to create (its still taking that money and giving it to the banks and other lenders which may be "responsible" but does not get cash out into the economy as it purports). And its not just "cyburbians" - this is the consensus of other studies and surveys as well. What the Bush tax rebates were based on is encouraging people to buy stuff, not reduce their debt. But the problem right now IS people swimming in debt - especially the unemployed who are growing by 600,000 plus each month and cannot pay car and house loans, let alone credit card bills.

Failure to address the looming demise of huge industries like the automakers will also result in millions more losing their jobs. That's MILLIONS of people. I'm not saying I am happy about these bailouts, but I think letting them (the automakers, the banks) go under would be such a blow that it would prolong any hope of recovery in the near future (and by near, I mean 2010 at the earliest).

Consider that if GM goes under, so do their suppliers who depend on them to stay alive. Now, if another car company comes along that is more responsive to consumer demands, clean and efficient energies, etc. such that they can become viable and competetive, the other ancillary businesses that supply radios, wiring, vinyl for the seats, tires, rims, anything that is outsourced, will not be there to support the industry and it will all have to be built up from scratch again. And that is a process that could take quite a bit of time, especially in a climate where lending for start-ups is in short supply.

And I think there are rules in place which prevent the tax cuts from being permanent. Or they may have structured them that way because they didn't forsee this recession and thought a surplus could be achieved some day. But really, I don't know. Why don't you ask George Bush why he didn't strucutre it that way in the first place?

Well, first off, there are no rules or laws to prevent the establishment of these tax cuts as permanent EXCEPT that there is a general rule (the Byrd Rule) that says that tax legislation should not be pursued if it will significantly increase the federal deficit beyond a ten-year term. This is not a law, but a rule, and many Republican lawmakers in 2001 were uncomfortable with the impact on tax revenues this tax cut plan would produce (ie. increasing the deficit). Thus the "sunset" clause.

Still, the Heritage Foundation and other groups (including many Republican lawmakers) continue to push for them to be permanent. It could be done if the will is there, which it hasn't been (for good reason, IMHO).

Secondly, plenty of people saw this recession coming, but were not in a position to make any decisions to address it. Indeed, many argue that the Bush tax cuts exacerbated a bad problem that coincides with the period 2001 to 2008. This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period (that's WWII). Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.

A key element of the Bush tax cut plan is greater preference for income from capital--savings, capital gains, and dividends. That plan is mostly beneficial to people whose income is primarily derived from owning capital assets, and ownership of capital assets is highly concentrated among the top of the income distribution. While some who own capital assets also work, most hardworking taxpayers who earn most of their income from labor do not have significant amounts of capital assets and did not reap large benefits from these preferential elements of the Bush tax cuts.

[mgk920]

And I think there are rules in place which prevent the tax cuts from being permanent. Or they may have structured them that way because they didn't forsee this recession and thought a surplus could be achieved some day. But really, I don't know. Why don't you ask George Bush why he didn't strucutre it that way in the first place?

Yea, ALL of the tax cuts that GWB got early in his tenure do 'expire' - it was written into that law at the behest of the Senate Democrats - they wouldn't have allowed a floor vote (remember the 'cloture' rules in the Senate) on that bill if that part wasn't included.

Another bill has to be passed/signed into law for them to be made permanent - and fat chance of THAT happening under Pelosi, Reid and Co....



Mike

[Whose Yur Planner]

And I think there are rules in place which prevent the tax cuts from being permanent. Or they may have structured them that way because they didn't forsee this recession and thought a surplus could be achieved some day. But really, I don't know. Why don't you ask George Bush why he didn't strucutre it that way in the first place?

IP, didn't you just agree Wahday about the tax breaks expiring? I think the point is that the tax breaks were supposed to help beacuse they thought the people who got them would reinvest the money they saved or spend it. As it turned out, that idea didn't work out. Obama is simply letting the tax breaks expire. Personally, I think that W put that provision in there because he thought he could make them permanent. Once he got the foot in the door, the whole body would be able to squeezed in. As it turns out, he was wrong.

The problem is that we don't manufacture that much in America. Our whole growth over the past decade or so was based on credit. Unforunately, no one quiet figured out where the money was supposed to come from to pay off the cedit when it came due.

[michaelskis]

After looking at the history of federal income taxes, its relation to federal programs, and their failures or successes, I fear that we have been screwed since the 1920’s and the person in power did not matter one bit.

We are where were are in this economic crisis because people have spent more than they make, borrowed more than they should, and saved less than they needed to. Today’s republicans are hyper liberal compared to those in the late 1910’s and early 1920’s.

The economy is not Obama’s fault. It is the fault of the several presidents (including Bush and Clinton) before him. Obama however has done thing to make it worse and even Jim Cramer (former Obama supporter and extreme liberal) said that Obama’s policies are the single biggest thing to destroy wealth in this country.

[CJC]

After looking at the history of federal income taxes, its relation to federal programs, and their failures or successes, I fear that we have been screwed since the 1920’s and the person in power did not matter one bit.

We are where were are in this economic crisis because people have spent more than they make, borrowed more than they should, and saved less than they needed to. Today’s republicans are hyper liberal compared to those in the late 1910’s and early 1920’s.

The economy is not Obama’s fault. It is the fault of the several presidents (including Bush and Clinton) before him. Obama however has done thing to make it worse and even Jim Cramer (former Obama supporter and extreme liberal) said that Obama’s policies are the single biggest thing to destroy wealth in this country.

You do realize how much our economy has grown since the 20's, no? And that a large part of this growth was and is due to the credit markets that have been developed (largely in New York) for both private and public entities? I agree that our love of credit (along with some other things) started spiraling out of control at some point, though I'd say it wasn't until the mid-80's that we really started hitting the bottle hard and doomed ourselves to a hard landing. Borrowing money is not bad if it's spent on the right things, whether that be the government borrowing or individuals borrowing. Borrowing money to invest is oftentimes quite good - borrowing to consume for consumption's sake is rarely good. Both the private sector and the government did too much of the latter.

Jim Cramer is a TV personality who constantly contradicts himself in order to attain higher ratings. He's good at his job. I don't take much of his advice, and I caution anyone else against taking the advice of someone who's primary goal is to generate higher ratings on a TV show. CNBC even reads a letter of caution before and after his show. Do we need to look back at some of the comments he made over the past two years leading up to Lehman failing?

[btrage]

You do realize how much our economy has grown since the 20's, no? And that a large part of this growth was and is due to the credit markets that have been developed (largely in New York) for both private and public entities? I agree that our love of credit (along with some other things) started spiraling out of control at some point, though I'd say it wasn't until the mid-80's that we really started hitting the bottle hard and doomed ourselves to a hard landing. Borrowing money is not bad if it's spent on the right things, whether that be the government borrowing or individuals borrowing. Borrowing money to invest is oftentimes quite good - borrowing to consume for consumption's sake is rarely good. Both the private sector and the government did too much of the latter.

Jim Cramer is a TV personality who constantly contradicts himself in order to attain higher ratings. He's good at his job. I don't take much of his advice, and I caution anyone else against taking the advice of someone who's primary goal is to generate higher ratings on a TV show. CNBC even reads a letter of caution before and after his show. Do we need to look back at some of the comments he made over the past two years leading up to Lehman failing?

Once again, thanks to CJC for telling the whole story.

[PennPlanner]

Is anyone's views changed in this thread? Of course not.

Obama winning 53% of the vote is similar to GHWB's 53% victory in 1988, but I haven't found anyone calling the '88 election a landslide.

Is Obama a failure after 50 days in office? Well, if you're a supporter, he's putting in the policies he campaigned on. If you aren't a supporter, he's freaking you out, so yes. If you are smack dab in the middle who voted for him because you supported the need for change, but didn't pay close attention to exactly what he wanted to change, he probably looks like someone just riding the wave in no real direction but you aren't calling the verdict this early on in.

Did Hoover cause the Great Depression? Did Roosevelt get the country out of the Great Depression? There are thousands of theories and opinions. Here's a few more: did the large tax increase the congressional Republicans enacted in 1931, specifically to fund relief programs, exacerbate the Depression? Probably. Did not just WWII, but the complete destruction of America's economic competitors (Britain was bankrupt, Germany and Japan destroyed and China, seen as a potential economic engine as early as the 1920s, slipped into communism), leave the US's economy completely unchallenged during the 1950s and 1960s? That surely helped, possibly more than any relief programs put into action by Roosevelt.

[michaelskis]

You do realize how much our economy has grown since the 20's, no? And that a large part of this growth was and is due to the credit markets that have been developed (largely in New York) for both private and public entities? I agree that our love of credit (along with some other things) started spiraling out of control at some point, though I'd say it wasn't until the mid-80's that we really started hitting the bottle hard and doomed ourselves to a hard landing. Borrowing money is not bad if it's spent on the right things, whether that be the government borrowing or individuals borrowing. Borrowing money to invest is oftentimes quite good - borrowing to consume for consumption's sake is rarely good. Both the private sector and the government did too much of the latter.

Jim Cramer is a TV personality who constantly contradicts himself in order to attain higher ratings. He's good at his job. I don't take much of his advice, and I caution anyone else against taking the advice of someone who's primary goal is to generate higher ratings on a TV show. CNBC even reads a letter of caution before and after his show. Do we need to look back at some of the comments he made over the past two years leading up to Lehman failing?

Has our economy grown since the 20’s… Yes. Has it grown because of the federal government, absolutely not! It has grown because of a strong capitalism sprit that has show the ‘work – get paid, don’t work – don’t get paid’ concept over and over again. If anything I would venture to say that the economy has grown in spite of the federal government.

Credit came on board in the mid to late 50’s with the VA offing low interest long term home loans to veterans. Do I think that was a good plan, no. I think a better would have been giving them money to help them buy a house. Then in the 70’s Dinners Club offered the first nationally recognized credit card. Today we know them as American Express.

If you look at the amount of debt that people have had over the past 4 decades personal debt has progressively increased while several companies, including the one that I work for, are dealing with this quiet well, because there is no corporate debt. Debt caries too much risk. At one point in time the risk was significantly less as job stability was stronger, but now even major multi national corporations like GM are on the verge of bankruptcy and the concept of job security is a delusional concept of the past. Without the job, there is no way to repay debt.

Imagine for a moment if you had no debt, 3 to 6 months of expenses (food utilities and emergency fund), and your income went to zero. While that is never a good thing, no having any debt dramatically decreases the need to go into desperation mode and helps people weather through the storm.

Debt is never a good thing and the past several administrations have used it as a tool... I see it like a blowtorch next to a full gas tank. Yea it gets the job done, but one slip and boom. Not worth the risk.

[Gedunker]

"A national debt will be to us a national blessing." Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury,1780

[wahday]

Has our economy grown since the 20’s… Yes. Has it grown because of the federal government, absolutely not! It has grown because of a strong capitalism sprit that has show the ‘work – get paid, don’t work – don’t get paid’ concept over and over again. If anything I would venture to say that the economy has grown in spite of the federal government.

I think this last post of yours is well articulated. But I would take issue with this first paragraph. I think it is often taken for granted the large investments that the government has made to lay the foundations for the kind of economic growth the US has experienced at many critical junctures in history.

There are many examples, many of which are by no means minor and played a critical role in the success of the private sector in the past:

• The railroad system - the railroads were planned by the Army, and financed by government, as projects vital for national defense and economic development.
• The Interstate Highway System - built by the government and financed with Department of Defense monies.
• Electrical generation and distribution grid - not all of this was government built, but a good deal was, from the Rural Electrification Administration in the mid 1930s to the massive hydro-electric dams of the Corps of Engineers and Department of the Interior. The successful electrification of the entire country was accomplished only with government investment.

These are just some of the biggies. I would absolutely agree that a government that is too big and attempts to control or manipulate the market through monopolization or other techniques is not conducive to economic growth and market diversification or health. At the same time, though, too small of a government role is not helpful either. Some may argue that much of the mess we are in now is the result of deregulation - that without government oversight, greed, abuse and scandal reign.

My view of the role of government in stimulating economic growth has to do with getting regulation "right" and also financing the development of technologies and infrastructure to support the development of private sector solutions. So, the government should have a big role in funding the development of things like alternative energies and the infrastructure needed to generate and distribute this energy. Farming or licensing these technologies out to the private sector will help the market determine best applications by adapting them into viable, consumable products. But without the incredible R&D investments needed to develop many these technologies, few start-ups or even established companies are in a very good position to do it themselves.

That's my view, anyway...

[imaplanner]

Jim Cramer is a TV personality who constantly contradicts himself in order to attain higher ratings. He's good at his job. I don't take much of his advice, and I caution anyone else against taking the advice of someone who's primary goal is to generate higher ratings on a TV show. CNBC even reads a letter of caution before and after his show. Do we need to look back at some of the comments he made over the past two years leading up to Lehman failing?

Speaking of Cramer- did you guys catch him getting his a$$ handed to him on the Daily Show last night? Wow.

[Suburb Repairman]

Speaking of Cramer- did you guys catch him getting his a$$ handed to him on the Daily Show last night? Wow.

Pretty impressive. Stewart has some serious passion about media accountability, and once in a while he just goes off on someone. I remember him completely owning Tucker Carlson on CNN's Crossfire. I like it when he turns off the comedy for a brief period and REALLY shows viewers how smart/thoughtful he is.

[NHPlanner]

Speaking of Cramer- did you guys catch him getting his a$$ handed to him on the Daily Show last night? Wow.

So much that I linked to it on my facebook page.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ited-interview

[Duke Of Dystopia]

.......If anything I would venture to say that the economy has grown in spite of the federal government.

Delusional. Without the federal government passing regulations and exerting federal power to enforce them, this country would have stayed an emerging nation in the 1930's to present. That would have been good for the world. Democrats did not cause the great depression, it was republicans. It seems the conservative republican faction wants to enforce another such event.

Credit came on board in the mid to late 50’s with the VA offing low interest long term home loans to veterans. Do I think that was a good plan, no. I think a better would have been giving them money to help them buy a house...

...which is called a loan. Those loans created jobs, which people then used to pay off the loans.

Do you have student loans? I suppose these should be terminated as well?

...but now even major multi national corporations like GM are on the verge of bankruptcy and the concept of job security is a delusional concept of the past. Without the job, there is no way to repay debt.

Another delusional analogy. The US auto manufacturers are not in trouble because of loans and credit. They are in trouble because they fought higher CAFE standards. They bet the farm that the Oil Industry would never bend them over the table and slam them in the keester with no lube! OOOOPS, auto company's didn't see that coming (no pun intended). Then, because their product was RIDICULOUSLY INFERIOR during $4 gallon gas, having refused to initiate higher CAFE standards when dealing with a power source that is an unstable commodity, they crash. Wow, another dry but slamming they could NOT POSSIBLY have seen coming.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale to you cheap!

Imagine for a moment if you had no debt, 3 to 6 months of expenses (food utilities and emergency fund), and your income went to zero. While that is never a good thing, no having any debt dramatically decreases the need to go into desperation mode and helps people weather through the storm.

What happens to them when it takes longer than that to find employment? We could go into the policy of the FED that limits full employment to no more than %4.5 unemployment before it creates a policy of harshly dampening the economy to keep wages down, but that doesn't fit nicely into the blind faith in the markets.

Yeah, you feel it is always the workers fault for the policy of their bosses and shareholders. No social net for them. blame the person making $9 an hour or less for breaking the economy.

I am sure you will be able to find a blow up Jim Cramer doll or some other wall street scum bag at a shop near you real soon. Its really nice to hear them wine about the poor rich people, and how they should get bailed out but screw everybody else. Lack of regulation caused it, re-regulation can fix it. Eliminating "credit" or limiting access to it is the most IGNORANT idea out there in conservative land. But you got yours, screw everybody else.

Debt is never a good thing and the past several administrations have used it as a tool... I see it like a blowtorch next to a full gas tank. Yea it gets the job done, but one slip and boom. Not worth the risk.

As others have stated, debt is how it is used and not good or bad in and off itself. Using it properly, builds wealth.

[boiker]

Delusional. Without the federal government passing regulations and exerting federal power to enforce them, this country would have stayed an emerging nation in the 1930's to present. That would have been good for the world. Democrats did not cause the great depression, it was republicans. It seems the conservative republican faction wants to enforce another such event.

The trade regulations the US governmnet issued in the 30s caused other developed nations to increase their tarrifs in kind and sent a globalizing economy into a dramatic tailspin. Some speculate had the tarrifs which were intended to foster domestic industries were not tampered with, Our economy would have righted itself much quicker.

Another delusional analogy. The US auto manufacturers are not in trouble because of loans and credit. They are in trouble because they fought higher CAFE standards.

I think that is short-sighted. GM complacently agreed to ridiculous union contracts which have killed them as their first and second rounds of union employees are now collecting posh pensions and retirement benfits. Legacy costs are killing the US automakers more than any adherence to a CAFE standard (which admittedly also has something to do with their troubles).

What happens to them when it takes longer than that to find employment? We could go into the policy of the FED that limits full employment to no more than %4.5 unemployment before it creates a policy of harshly dampening the economy to keep wages down, but that doesn't fit nicely into the blind faith in the markets.

I don't see how this retort addresses Mski's point that people should not take on debt.

Lack of regulation caused it, re-regulation can fix it. Eliminating "credit" or limiting access to it is the most IGNORANT idea out there in conservative land. But you got yours, screw everybody else.

Credit is a managed risk. When the regulation was relaxed, the risk-taking was inflated dramatically. Two parties are to blame: Banks for offering the risky credit product, and consumers for buying it.

I see credit as taking money from the future and using it in the present. If you don't use the credit to create capital, you are using it as capital. Using debt as consumer capital (wealth) will eventually result in collapse. Credit should only be used when an applicable, and properly vetted business plan is reviewed by a loan underwriter.

Credit scores and other weighted calculations put too much stock into statistics and not enough into the social, unquantifiable criteria that you only get through the one-on-one review of a "business plan". I use business plan loosely to capture an consumer's application for credit for a car, home, or consumption. One-size-fits-most credit must not exist anymore. We need tailored credit for each specific consumer and producer.

[Duke Of Dystopia]

The trade regulations the US governmnet issued in the 30s caused other developed nations to increase their tarrifs in kind and sent a globalizing economy into a dramatic tailspin. Some speculate had the tarrifs which were intended to foster domestic industries were not tampered with, Our economy would have righted itself much quicker.

It was AFTER the fact that the Republican administration allowed the start of the Great depression based upon lack of regulation. This drove the economy into the dirt of ruin. Keep it to the cause of the issue. Attempting to blame the adminsitration taking over from the culprits that caused it is disengenuous.

I think that is short-sighted. GM complacently agreed to ridiculous union contracts which have killed them as their first and second rounds of union employees are now collecting posh pensions and retirement benfits. Legacy costs are killing the US automakers more than any adherence to a CAFE standard (which admittedly also has something to do with their troubles).

Yeah, blame the unions for the company making shity cars based upon gas guzling clunkers that can't be economically operated when the price goes to $4 a gallon or more. Shame on you for blaming workers for the faults of the industry.

They paid many millions in lobbying fees to fight tighter and higher CAFE standards that would have eventually saved them. Corporations and the GOP fought really hard to make the industry inviable in the future.

Those higher wages you are ranting about, are only $4 more an hour than a comparable Japanese or German auto worker (in the US). If you argue that the health care issue is to blame, you should be on board with universal, single payer health care. Or are you on board with Michaelski that corporations are god and workers should just be used and disposed of when they get sick and can't work, let them take care of themselves after they have been used up.

I don't see how this retort addresses Mski's point that people should not take on debt.
......
Credit is a managed risk. When the regulation was relaxed, the risk-taking was inflated dramatically. Two parties are to blame: Banks for offering the risky credit product, and consumers for buying it.
...
I see credit as taking money from the future and using it in the present. If you don't use the credit to create capital, you are using it as capital. Using debt as consumer capital (wealth) will eventually result in collapse. Credit should only be used when an applicable, and properly vetted business plan is reviewed by a loan underwriter.

You make my point for me. It is called R E G U L A T I O N !

Something m-skis has consistently stated as unneeded and harmful and akin to a socialist / communist plot to limit the freedom of the top 5% of wage earners to do as they will.

Credit scores and other weighted calculations put too much stock into statistics and not enough into the social, unquantifiable criteria that you only get through the one-on-one review of a "business plan". I use business plan loosely to capture an consumer's application for credit for a car, home, or consumption. One-size-fits-most credit must not exist anymore. We need tailored credit for each specific consumer and producer.

Again, its called R E G U L A T I O N !

Most of this was not an issue until the U N R E G U L A T E D sale of "Derivatives" based upon an U N R E G U L A T E D market occurred. What is it about that do people not understand?

[PennPlanner]

Oh boy, I'm not going to even begin to respond. but I will say that it's amazing how so set into their own views certain people are that they automatically assume they are always right and thus other views absolutely have to be wrong.

It's fun to read these arguments for a page or two, but then it gets tiring.

But I'd like to throw this out for those who want to point fingers and blame someone: if Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Roosevelt is responsible for the current economic mess, what does it have to do with the global economic meltdown happening elsewhere in the world?

Take the UK, for example. The UK has been run by a Labour government since 1997, some years before Bush came into office. The US tax policies and de-regulations have very minimal impacts on the UK economy. The UK is a much more regulated country than the US. Yet the UK (along with most of Europe) saw an identical real estate bubble to the one that happened in the US, and the bubble lasted longer and was even more pronounced in the UK or Spain than in the US.

Now, these two countries are mired in deep recession. Is Bush to blame for that? Or Clinton? Or Roosevelt?

We can try to point fingers and blame so many political leaders, but at the end of the day the blame for the economic mistakes has to be shared by almost all citizens of the US, or the UK or the rest of world. We, even individuals, willingly participated in the great material and consumerism boom and spending. We willingly bought crap from China and threw away barely used goods. We chose not to save money.

It was a collective decision on the part of society that led to this current economic collapse, and the politicians are merely people who granted what we wanted.

Last but not least, such events are almost unavoidable. History is littered with economic booms followed by economic collapses. It's inevitable, because we as human beings are flawed beings, and thus our societies are also flawed, including our economies. The political party that happens to be in power when the bust happens is merely unlucky.

[mgk920]

Getting a bit more back to the topic of this thread, how are BHO's public opinion 'approval' numbers doing compared to GWB's at the same point in his tenure (early-mid March of the first year)?



Mike

[Suburb Repairman]

Getting a bit more back to the topic of this thread, how are BHO's public opinion 'approval' numbers doing compared to GWB's at the same point in his tenure (early-mid March of the first year)?



Mike

This link gets you all of the polls:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-obama.php

Always look at the source of a poll, rather than an article written about it. Here's a link to Rasmussen Reports, which I figure is the one you are referencing.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._tracking_poll

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

Rasmussen data shows that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was at the same point in 2001.

Being a bit of a statistical perfectionist, there are a couple of differences between Rasmussen and other polls. Rasmussen is using likely voters rather than "all adults" or "registered voters" like the other polls. Also, Rasmussen is the only automated poll currently recording approval rating, and there might be a social pressure right now to not disapprove of President Obama's job performance when talking to other humans. This could explain the huge difference between Rasmussen and other polls on the number who "disapprove" of his job performance. I'm also a little perturbed that I cannot find confidence intervals or margin of error on their website for this poll, nor can I find what Bush's actual numbers are.

Still, the degree to which Rasmussen is outlying from all other polls right now is alarming and suspect. This huge difference should probably be noted whenever Rasmussen polls are reported in the media... assuming the 24/7 cable news outlets ever cared about issues of statistical significance, treatment of outlyers, etc.

The good folks at Pollster have an article discussing this Rasmussen poll, which they are also calling out as questionable given the results of so many others. They say, and I tend to agree, that this poll looks cherry-picked. Link:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/re_oba...d_the_batt.php



And to be REALLY honest, the discussion of polls for the first six months of a presidency is worthless and a result of the 24/7 cable news stations needing to create anything that even smells like controversy to stay relavent.

[boiker]

Yeah, blame the unions for the company making shity cars based upon gas guzling clunkers that can't be economically operated when the price goes to $4 a gallon or more. Shame on you for blaming workers for the faults of the industry. I blamed GM for agreeing to the ridiculous union contracts. The LEGACY costs, not present day costs, are killing them. The union did what any good business person does, they got the best collective bargining deal they could. I don't blame them. However, I expect that all white and blue collar workers to make concessions to save their companies amongst other corporate changes that are necessary. They paid many millions in lobbying fees to fight tighter and higher CAFE standards that would have eventually saved them. I still feel this is a stretch. The legacy costs are not going away through improving fuel mileage standards. There is more to their downfal that just fuel standards. Quality was subpar, styling was terrible/boring, and the line-up of vehicles were either redundant or inappropriate. Those higher wages you are ranting about, are only $4 more an hour than a comparable Japanese or German auto worker (in the US). If you argue that the health care issue is to blame, Let's see what I said: GM complacently agreed to ridiculous union contracts which have killed them as their first and second rounds of union employees are now collecting posh pensions and retirement benfits. I didn't say squat about wages. I did say that their retirement benefits are killing them. That is GM's fault. They long range fiscal planning sucked and they were slowly digging the hole they are now at the bottom of. you should be on board with universal, single payer health care. And in fact, I am. Or are you on board with Michaelski that corporations are god and workers should just be used and disposed of when they get sick and can't work, let them take care of themselves after they have been used up. Nope. I believe in corporate responsibility. GM has behaved irresponsibly in a myriad of ways. You make my point for me. It is called R E G U L A T I O N ! Read what you said again: What happens to them when it takes longer than that to find employment? We could go into the policy of the FED that limits full employment to no more than %4.5 unemployment before it creates a policy of harshly dampening the economy to keep wages down, but that doesn't fit nicely into the blind faith in the markets. Where do you talk about adding regulation? You just rail on the fed having crap policies which trample livable wages and reasonable employment. Do you want additional corporate regulation regarding how many people they can hire and layoff? I talked about the credit markets, which I agree need to be regulated much more than they have been in the last 20 years. Most of this was not an issue until the U N R E G U L A T E D sale of "Derivatives" based upon an U N R E G U L A T E D market occurred. What is it about that do people not understand? I don't know but I agree that improved regulation is needed. I caution that you only speak to one part of the issue--the lenders. The lendees also have a part in this mess. We bought what they sold us and often against our better fiscal judgement.

Back on topic:

Obama has ticked up in my personal opinion poll. His words about doing whatever it takes to attach strings to all the bailout money was long overdue. Took them long enough to realize you can't give money away for free.