Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• believer

  

  BoatShoes;668902 wrote:I mean, I can't even begin to explain why the idea that workers wages go up as profits go up and economic growth increases is not a socialist/marxist idea. I mean, I'm not even sure it's possible to have a reasonable conversation with some of you cats. What about all of the pro-capitalist rhetoric he's been spewing since the State of the Union...is he just full of shit, lying, a walking machine of deception??

  Naw...He's just attempting to be politically expedient after having his ass handed to him back in November.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;668902 wrote:I mean, I can't even begin to explain why the idea that workers wages go up as profits go up and economic growth increases is not a socialist/marxist idea. I mean, I'm not even sure it's possible to have a reasonable conversation with some of you cats. What about all of the pro-capitalist rhetoric he's been spewing since the State of the Union...is he just full of shit, lying, a walking machine of deception??

  Assuming that's what he meant...it was a monumentally stupid way to phrase it.
• BoatShoes

  believer;668915 wrote:Naw...He's just attempting to be politically expedient after having his ass handed to him back in November.

  
  I mean what about this; "In our standard economics textbooks and in our modern political debates, laissez-faire is the default rule; anyone who would challenge it swims against the prevailing tide." from Audacity of Hope among other things he's said since day 1.
  
  You guys are so emotionally invested in this idea that he's a radical manchurian candidate seeking to destroy american exceptionalism from within that nothing could convince you otherwise.
• stlouiedipalma

  ptown_trojans_1;668709 wrote:Well of course not. It is 2011 still. There have been no primaries, no debates, etc.
  No candidate is ready to be President or take on the Presidency nearly two years out.
  Again, if this was in 2012, it would be news. Now, it is nothing.

  
  And the closer we get to 2012 the clearer it becomes that the GOP nominee will be a member of the "good ole' boys" club and they will wonder how they could have lost.
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;668933 wrote:I mean what about this; "In our standard economics textbooks and in our modern political debates, laissez-faire is the default rule; anyone who would challenge it swims against the prevailing tide." from Audacity of Hope among other things he's said since day 1.
  
  You guys are so emotionally invested in this idea that he's a radical manchurian candidate seeking to destroy american exceptionalism from within that nothing could convince you otherwise.

  This particular POTUS thinks he is the new prevailing tide and takes things quite personally when anyone dares to challenge that thinking. If BHO is all about American exceptionalism perhaps he needs to stop apologizing for it at every opportunity.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;669494 wrote:And the closer we get to 2012 the clearer it becomes that the GOP nominee will be a member of the "good ole' boys" club and they will wonder how they could have lost.

  Sad, but true. Whoever has "paid their dues" and is "next in line," usually gets the nod...rarely with good results.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;668902 wrote:I mean, I can't even begin to explain why the idea that workers wages go up as profits go up and economic growth increases is not a socialist/marxist idea.

  Didn't say it was, necessarily.... so long as the private enterprise makes the decision of its own accord. Free markets always allocate resources far better than any other mechanism (especially including government and socialists etc...). And in free markets, market based wages and benefits prevail. The point of the original post is, IT IS NONE OF OBAMA'S BUSINESS WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISES DO WITH THEIR ASSETS, PROFITS, OR RETAINED EARNINGS. Got it, now?
• stlouiedipalma

  fish82;669667 wrote:Sad, but true. Whoever has "paid their dues" and is "next in line," usually gets the nod...rarely with good results.

  
  I would think that if the GOP learned anything about the midterm elections it would be that fresh new faces can win elections. They just need to seize on that and use it in a national campaign.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;669792 wrote:Didn't say it was, necessarily.... so long as the private enterprise makes the decision of its own accord. Free markets always allocate resources far better than any other mechanism (especially including government and socialists etc...). And in free markets, market based wages and benefits prevail. The point of the original post is, IT IS NONE OF OBAMA'S BUSINESS WHAT PRIVATE SECTOR ENTERPRISES DO WITH THEIR ASSETS, PROFITS, OR RETAINED EARNINGS. Got it, now?

  
  See, I mean, you don't even believe in the concept of market failure. A basic example of market failure is inadequate consumer information. Most of us aren't doctors or pharmacists so we don't have adequate knowledge about medicine, etc. In order to have an efficient market we'd all have to bone up on this knowledge so people couldn't sell us Snake Oil and potions like not so long ago. Hence, we create a federal agency with people that do have this type of knowledge to do that kind of work for us.
  
  And for heavens sake, regulatory agencies can certainly fail but it's like you don't even know what really makes up an efficient market wherein no players can artificially influence the market price. You will just drum beat the anti-obama drum on an on into perpetuity.
  
  And as an aside, why wouldn't it be his business? Since the days of Aristotle the best way to avoid the poor from uprising against the rich and powerful is to have a strong and powerful middle class. People in our government, who have no power to forcibly control the private business actors in most instances at the very least might want to suggest that the rich and powerful raise their wages. Just like you or I or Thomas Sowell might have an opinion, he can at the very least have one too...even if he's just an uninformed incompetent glad-handing marxist.
• O-Trap

  

  BoatShoes;669864 wrote:See, I mean, you don't even believe in the concept of market failure. A basic example of market failure is inadequate consumer information. Most of us aren't doctors or pharmacists so we don't have adequate knowledge about medicine, etc. In order to have an efficient market we'd all have to bone up on this knowledge so people couldn't sell us Snake Oil and potions like not so long ago. Hence, we create a federal agency with people that do have this type of knowledge to do that kind of work for us.

  If such an industry existed in a vacuum, yes, this would be a problem.
  
  However, if consumer information is lacking ... then consumer information becomes a productive industry for private enterprise, and you'd be shocked at how that can work out well for all parties involved (thanks to the advent of the Internet).
  
  If someone is selling something suspicious, it would be lucrative for me to set up a website dispelling myths about it, and throwing up AdSense on my page. Consumer gets the info they want without paying through the nose, I put a little coin in my pocket (just ask Justin), and a need in the market gets met. Everyone wins.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;669864 wrote: People in our government, who have no power to forcibly control the private business actors in most instances at the very least might want to suggest that the rich and powerful raise their wages. Just like you or I or Thomas Sowell might have an opinion, he can at the very least have one too...even if he's just an uninformed incompetent glad-handing marxist.

  Unfortunately, people in government do have the power to forcibly control private business, and that power is increasing exponentially under this administration, just as they envisioned. I am stunned that an other-wise intelligent individual does not realize this; perhaps you have not had dealings with some of the various regulating agencies and the anti-capitalists now heading them up.
  
  And yes, obama can obviously have his opinions, he also has an ideology that drives him; one that in my opinion and many others, is the antithesis of what this country is all about. We have an activist/agitator in charge; one who never met a payroll and one who hasn't a clue what it means to survive in private business and provide millions of jobs. He can't change his stripes despite the recent rhetoric.
  
  Good luck.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Yeah, I would say it's easy to say that one way of thinking is superior to another when one has only read books, articles, papers, etc. to give you that information. Much like Obama.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;669831 wrote:I would think that if the GOP learned anything about the midterm elections it would be that fresh new faces can win elections. They just need to seize on that and use it in a national campaign.

  Agreed. Five bucks says they don't though.
• Ty Webb

  

  http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRTwz1tzSQFqc06bHyjpLjKd6sjQ?docId=a65fe0577eb8481cb48a5b59351d3a12
  
  And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush
  
  In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president. In Bush's last year in office, tax receipts were 17.5 percent of GDP, just below their 40-year average.
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;670686 wrote:http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRTwz1tzSQFqc06bHyjpLjKd6sjQ?docId=a65fe0577eb8481cb48a5b59351d3a12
  
  And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush
  
  In the current budget year, federal tax receipts will be equal to 14.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, the lowest level since Harry Truman was president. In Bush's last year in office, tax receipts were 17.5 percent of GDP, just below their 40-year average.

  9% unemployment will do that for ya. Oh wait...was that what Bam was talking about with the tax cut then?
• Ty Webb

  

  Damn....he has the lowest tax rates in 50 years,and folks still can't give him a break
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;670914 wrote:Damn....he has the lowest tax rates in 50 years,and folks still can't give him a break

  Unless you're willing to give him "credit" for the 9% unemployment that is directly the cause of the decreased tax receipts, (not rates, btw) then I don't know what to tell ya.
• Ty Webb

  

  fish....considering that unemployment rate in not all his fault,why should he get most of the blame?
• stlouiedipalma

  Because he holds the office. If he gets defeated in 2012 the next guy will be responsible for the unemployment rate and the state of the economy.
  
  
  You'll notice I used the word "guy" and not "gal".
• Ty Webb

  

  stlouiedipalma;671037 wrote:Because he holds the office. If he gets defeated in 2012 the next guy will be responsible for the unemployment rate and the state of the economy.
  
  
  You'll notice I used the word "guy" and not "gal".

  
  That is a massive if
• Al Bundy

  Ty Webb;670981 wrote:fish....considering that unemployment rate in not all his fault,why should he get most of the blame?

  
  He's been in office for almost 25 months. At what point does he become responsible for things?
• believer

  

  Ty Webb;670981 wrote:fish....considering that unemployment rate in not all his fault,why should he get most of the blame?

  True....there's always the "It's Bush's Fault" Clause.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;671188 wrote:True....there's always the "It's Bush's Fault" Clause.

  See, I appreciate that Obama needs to be held accountable for the state of the country and not the last guy. But it is shortsided to think that Obama had any real control over this downturn. He didn't cause the housing bubble and crash and he didn't let banks do all the things that led to the situation we had in the financial industry.
  
  Now, has he done everything he could to make the best of the hand he was dealt? No. There are things he could have done and still could do that would help. Some of it is removing regulations that don't make sense in certain industries and some of it may be stepping in and regulating some things that should be. He's in a position right now where if he makes the right moves we can see some really good things in the next few years. Or we could see more of what we have been.
• believer

  

  The POTUS really has superficial and indirect powers to effect the economy. What a President can do, though, is set the tone and motivate through words of leadership.
  
  Obama comes across as being a blamer, finger pointer, chastiser, and apologist. He does not see what's right and good in the American spirit; he dwells on the negative. He honestly thinks that we are incapable of righting the ship without government intervention. Obama may be a good public speaker, but he doesn't inspire.
  
  By contrast Reagan fully understood the American mindset. He had the ability of making us feel good about being American. He understood that it wasn't the government who would pull us out of an economic slump but the collective will of the people. Reagan was a good public speaker who knew how to inspire. You know - the shining city on the hill effect.
  
  Two years into the Reagan presidency we were well on the way to the 80's economic turnaround after the double-dip recession of the mid to late 70's. Two years into the BHO presidency the housing market is still in shambles, unemployment remains at more than 9%, and there doesn't really seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel.
  
  I do not necessarily blame BHO for the current economic malaise, but he can do a far better job of getting us to believe in ourselves.
• fish82

  

  Ty Webb;670981 wrote:fish....considering that unemployment rate in not all his fault,why should he get most of the blame?

  I'm not saying that. I'm illustrating the stuipidity of you trying to give him credit for low taxes, when the unemployment rate is the cause of it.