Archive

Disgusted With Obama Administration.

  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;894540 wrote:Somebody beam me up
    Do you not believe that there would be a difference between:

    A. The government levying a tax to, say, pay for a massive and impenetrable wall along the U.S. Mexican Border as a way to mitigate unemployment and fulfill a desirable national interest in an economic downturn

    and,

    B. The government levying a tax to transfer that money to poor people for food assistance.

    One is being levied for a public good and the other is a transfer payment. The only transfer type payments Obama has actively supported are extensions in unemployment benefit duration which even Ronald Reagan supported and proposed during the 1982 recession. Raising taxes to mitigate the effects of stimulating tax cuts like payroll tax cuts or infrastructure spending is not "redistribution" in the way that you mean for it to be used my friend.
  • BoatShoes
    Cleveland Buck;894558 wrote:Obama supports the same redistribution of wealth that both parties have for 90 years. Debasing the currency and inflated prices by default redistributes wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich.
    No...allowing asset prices to deflate while individuals are still burdened with contracts and debt based upon the inflated asset prices and demanding that they fulfill those contracts with more expensive dollars or fall into bankruptcy based upon a morality play about debt is what really transfers wealth to those rich corporations you despise.

    You suggest that the entrepreneurs and the market was flummoxed into malinvestment (you think they would've learned by now wouldn't you???) by the federal reserve and yet you insist that they suffer like a profligate drinker who must relish in his hangover after a night of boozing. We don't have to though and yet you're arguing for a situation wherein there would be a decades long depression and deflationary spiral wherein many people will experience great pain as that's how long it would take for the market clearing you desire to happen...all because you don't like fiat money.
  • BGFalcons82
    Another loss for Barry and the Agitators - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/129729408.html?cmpid=15585797

    I understand the SCOTUS' decision to not take this on immediately, as they wanted it to ramble through the federal court system and appellate courts. Well...it's been doing just that and there are judgements going both ways, thus making this issue in dire need of a final decision.

    The question now is, when will the SCOTUS take up the case against ObamaKare? How many more rulings must be endured before they decide to take it? I understand the ruling from Pennsylvania isn't a Cicuit Court of Appeals decision, however enough is enough with the lawyers, the time wasted, the money wasted, etc. The monstrosity kicks in full force in less than 16 months and the rules/regs are being contrived each and every day prior to its implementation. The longer the SCOTUS waits, the more costly it will be to fix. Heaven knows we don't have the money to pay for it, let alone pay to have it built up and then removed.
  • Cleveland Buck
    BoatShoes;894583 wrote:No...allowing asset prices to deflate while individuals are still burdened with contracts and debt based upon the inflated asset prices and demanding that they fulfill those contracts with more expensive dollars or fall into bankruptcy based upon a morality play about debt is what really transfers wealth to those rich corporations you despise.
    Most people would default on their debt in that situation, thereby punishing the banks that made the loans with inflated money. It would teach people to save their money and pay cash when they want to buy something, just like we did years ago.
    BoatShoes;894583 wrote: You suggest that the entrepreneurs and the market was flummoxed into malinvestment (you think they would've learned by now wouldn't you???) by the federal reserve and yet you insist that they suffer like a profligate drinker who must relish in his hangover after a night of boozing.
    Of course business knew interest rates were artificially low, but they have no way of knowing how much lower they are than they should be. Combine that with government programs in every industry, implied bailouts for every bank and big company, and endless business regulations, is it any wonder how the economy got so fucked up? And of course they should suffer the consequences of their bad investments in housing, mortgage backed securities, tech stocks, and now U.S. bonds, the latest bubble.
    BoatShoes;894583 wrote: We don't have to though and yet you're arguing for a situation wherein there would be a decades long depression and deflationary spiral wherein many people will experience great pain as that's how long it would take for the market clearing you desire to happen...all because you don't like fiat money.
    We don't have to because you and other Keynesians say so? I don't like fiat money because it doesn't work. And where were your decades long depressions before 1929? The government never stepped in with bailouts and Keynesian solutions and 0% interest rates before then. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve we never had a depression last as long as this one, let alone the Great Depression.

    Do you really think this is sustainable? We don't produce anything, and all we do is borrow money to buy everyone else's production. Do you think that can continue as the bills come due for our previous spending? Is there anything productive about that situation?
    Robert Higgs
    One More Time: Consumption Spending HAS Already Recovered

    Commentators and pundits, some of whom ought to know better, continue to harp on the idea that the recession persists because consumers are not spending. Every Keynesian seems to believe that because consumers are in a dreadful funk, only government stimulus spending can rescue the moribund economy, given (to them, at least) that investors will not spend more because the Fed, having already driven interest rates to extraordinarily low levels, cannot use conventional policies to drive them any lower and thereby elicit more investment spending.

    People, please look at the data. They are conveniently available to one and all at the website maintained by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the outfit that generates the national income and product accounts for the United States.

    According to these data, real personal consumption expenditure recovered from its recession decline by the fourth quarter of 2010. Continuing to grow, it now stands (as of the most recent data, for the second quarter of 2011) even farther above its pre-recession peak.

    Real government expenditure for consumption and investment (this concept does not include the government’s transfer spending, such as unemployment insurance benefits and social security benefits) is also running higher than its pre-recession level. In the second quarter of 2011, it was running more than 2 percent higher (recall that this is “real,” or inflation-adjusted spending; nominal spending has grown substantially more).

    The economy remains moribund not because consumption spending has failed to recover and not because government spending has failed to increase, but because the true driver of economic growth—private investment—remains deeply depressed. Gross private domestic fixed investment fell steeply after the second quarter of 2007, and in the second quarter of 2011 it remained 19 percent below its pre-recession peak. This figure fails to show how bad the investment situation really is, however, because the bulk of the investment spending now taking place is for what the accountants call the ”capital consumption allowance,” the amount estimated as necessary to compensate for the wear and tear and obsolescence of the existing capital stock.

    The key variable is net private domestic fixed investment—the investment that builds the productive private capital stock. Quarterly data through this year are not currently available at the BEA website, but the annual data show that an index of its real amount peaked in 2006, fell substantially in each of the following three years, and recovered only slightly in 2010, when the index showed net private domestic fixed investment was running about 78 percent below its level in 2005 and 2006. Here is the true reason for the recession’s persistence.

    Private investors, despite the full recovery of real consumer spending and the increase of real government spending for final goods and services, remain apprehensive about the future of new investments, especially new long-term investments. I have argued repeatedly during the past three years that an important reason for this apprehension and the consequent reluctance to make new capital commitments is regime uncertainty—in this case, a widespread, serious fear that the government’s major policies in areas such as taxation, Obamacare, financial reform, environmental regulation, and other areas will have the effect of depriving investors of control over their capital or diminishing their ability to appropriate the income that the capital generates. President Obama’s harping on the desirability of making “the rich” pay their “fair share” (that is, more) of the government’s ever-rising costs only exacerbates regime uncertainty. Business leaders have spoken again and again of how the present political environment is discouraging risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

    In any event, it should be crystal clear that the problem is not the failure of consumer spending to recover. Let us please have more respect for the facts than to continue singing that old, thoroughly worn-out tune.
    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/141753.html

    If consumer spending is back above pre-2008 levels and we still have close to 20% real unemployment and 10% real inflation, what does that tell you? We should be in great shape according to you people.
  • Writerbuckeye
    Tsk, Tsk, Cleveland: Don't you know the problem is we haven't spent ENOUGH money? The first stimulus should have been at least twice as big as it was -- and there should have been a second just as big.

    There's no risk to creating all this debt, right boat?
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    Writerbuckeye;895103 wrote:Tsk, Tsk, Cleveland: Don't you know the problem is we haven't spent ENOUGH money? The first stimulus should have been at least twice as big as it was -- and there should have been a second just as big.

    There's no risk to creating all this debt, right boat?
    According to Warren Mosler, no.

    http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

    Then again, he proposes a federal funded job for any person without specifying exactly what said job entails...
  • BGFalcons82
    Let's do a little math:

    Barry wants to spend $457,000,000,000 and there are 14,000,000 unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm If Barry were to just give it away, with no strings attached, he could give each unemployed person a "job" that would pay them $32,643 for 1 year, or $15.70 per an imaginary 40 hour work week to just SIT HOME AND DO NOTHING. Unemployment would equal 0%, people would have walking around money to spend for a year, and the economy would definitely improve as people spend spend spend their borrowed and stolen money from their children and grandchildren.

    Clearly, this would never happen, as Barry needs to create dependency and demonstrate further control into our lives. But I did the math to demonstrate how badly the government would spend their treasure trove, should they be given the keys to the cashless vault. If he did try this, then the people making less than $32,000 per year would quit their jobs and take a government-paid vacation for 52 weeks. Isn't communism wonderful???

    PS - Barry borrowed, printed and stole twice this amount 30 months ago and where did all that money go? Why does he need more? Follow the money...like to Solyndra.
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;895190 wrote:PS - Barry borrowed, printed and stole twice this amount 30 months ago and where did all that money go? Why does he need more? Follow the money...like to Solyndra.
    Haven't you been listening to the Keynesianites, the MSM, and Boatshoes?

    If Barry hadn't implemented the mysterious "gotta spend this NOW" $800 Billion Porkulus 1 a couple of years ago, the earth would have imploded...not to mention unemployment would have risen higher than 8%.

    Those shovel the shit ready jobs have employed millions, improved our infrastructure, and kept the economy humming enough for us to keep sucking down Chinese-made goods like there's no tomorrow.

    C'mon BG...get with the program or we'll have to ship you to Siberia for more indoctrination training.
  • QuakerOats
    Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me ....... doesn't look like people are being fooled again:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/obama-approval-drops-on-skepticism-of-jobs-plan.html


    Earlier in the 1900's we had a president who said "America's business is business"; today we have a president who says America's business is dependency.

    Change we can believe in ...
  • BGFalcons82
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:Actually it sounds more like the guy who said this "The subject of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State." Hint, hint, Adam Smith who supported progressive taxation and got the ball rolling on this whole capitalism thingy.
    [INDENT]Clearly, you've studied Adam Smith more than I. Can you find the quotes from Mr. Smith wherein he advocates half of the population pays no taxes? How about the quotes from him that show the top 10% of wage earners need to pay more than the 60% of the tax burden they already share? Where's the passage that defines what amount equates to, "paying their fair share".[/INDENT]
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:And, being as such that BHO has proposed the hike on personal income taxes to 39.6% on the top marginal rate to help reduce the deficit...not to redistribute to other people. the redistribution you irrationally fear and which Obama has never supported involves transfer payments from one person to another through things like SNAP or TANF. Furthermore, increasing taxes on those in the top marginal rate bracket to pay for payroll tax cuts and tax cuts for business owners is a more efficient way of stimulating the economy without having the tax raises negatively effect unemployment like say, firing FBI agents might, etc.
    [INDENT]You use a lot of words so let me see if I understand your point. Are you suggesting that taking more money from the top earners and increasing goverment spending (with those same dollars collected from the top earners) is not a wealth redistribution policy? It's not an irrational fear, Boat. But taking more money out of the private sector so as to increase inefficient government spending in some forelorn hope that it will spur the economy is indeed something to fear as it has not worked since Rosie the Riveter was building planes in an all out war against Socialist Nazis.[/INDENT]
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:Additionally, although it is disingenuous for BHO to refer to those in the top marginal rate bracket as "millionaires and billionaires" it is not that far off. A person's taxable income is not the salary they agreed to with their boss but the income left over after the plethora of distortionary deductions we now have in the code. For a Married Couple to be in the top marginal tax bracket they're going to have to earn more than $250,000 a year in ordinary income.
    [INDENT]Looks like the Obama Kool Aid is working for ya. ;) Are you suggesting that people who have an AGI of $1,000,000 actually write off and take deductions totalling over $750,000 in order to get to a max of $250,000? Or, are you suggesting that income should not be taxed and we should institute a tax on wealth? Don't we already have that with the Capital Gains tax AND the DEATH Tax?
    [/INDENT]
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:But as to your claim about "marxism," there is a serious difference between governments actively using fiscal policy in ways that can lower unemployment while also mitigating medium term deficit impact and government ownership of all private property so much so that failing to delineate between the begs the question as to whether one who is making the assertion you are is capable of having an adult conversation.
    [INDENT]Redistribution of wealth and capital is certainly in Obama's makeup. He said so. He wrote so. His father expounded so. But you feel the need to question my age because you've previously posted he's the 2nd coming of Ronald Wilson Reagan.:p[/INDENT]
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:One thing though that Barry should trump up more is a cut in the marginal rates on corporations. Tax receipts from taxes on corporations have averaged only 1.4% of GDP the last two years so reducing those marginal rates would have a lesser impact on our deficit and, at the very least, combat the idea the he is anti-capitalist, etc. He mentioned doing it in his speech but he should trump it up more IMHO. There is little evidence in the literature to suggest that it will increase investment in capital goods as much of this comes from retained earnings and internally generated funds stemming from spending by governments, individuals and businesses but he needs to do something to hard and solid to fight the unsupported notion that he's an anti-capitalist.
    [INDENT]Careful, Boat. You're going to have your subscription the the Krugman Manifesto Diaries cancelled on you.:D
    [/INDENT]
    BoatShoes;894509 wrote:But finally, Adam Smith would not think a higher marginal rate for taxable income above $250,000 for a married couple is "marxist" nor contrary to the ideals of capitalism and wealth creation but wholly consistent with the concept of a social contract so perhaps you shouldn't either.
    [INDENT]Yeah, you're probably right. Raising taxes never has unintended consequences. Like the luxury boat tax a few years ago...that didn't affect the boat workers too much did it? Or like having a corporate tax rate of 35% won't chase jobs and headquarters overseas to the UK. Or like raising taxes on cigarette smokers will increase tax revenue. Keep finding those Smith quotes that defend your point of view. My hunch is that there are thousands that are in direct disagreement with your opinions that we'll never read about.[/INDENT]
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/a-gift-for-lawyers-in-obama-s-jobs-plan-the-ticker.html

    the assault continues ....... there is zero reason to invest in human capital given the dictates continually being laid out by the radicals in the white house and their cohorts at NLRB. #$%$% 'em
  • jhay78
    QuakerOats;896059 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/a-gift-for-lawyers-in-obama-s-jobs-plan-the-ticker.html

    the assault continues ....... there is zero reason to invest in human capital given the dictates continually being laid out by the radicals in the white house and their cohorts at NLRB. #$%$% 'em
    That's amazing stuff right there:
    Thankfully, the proposal goes on to say that "nothing in this act is intended to preclude an employer or employment agency from considering an individual's employment history, or from examining the reasons underlying an individual’s status as unemployed, in assessing an individual’s ability to perform a job or in otherwise making employment decisions about that individual." The hard part of course would be proving whether someone's unemployment is the reason that person is still unemployed.
    How many times did Obama say "You should pass this bill right away", "Pass this bill" , etc, etc, the other night? I stopped listening the moment he said this:
    The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.
    He actually had the nerve to lecture someone else about contributing to "the political circus". The jobs speech itself was an entire act in the political circus that has become Obama's reelection campaign.
  • jmog
    QuakerOats;896059 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/a-gift-for-lawyers-in-obama-s-jobs-plan-the-ticker.html

    the assault continues ....... there is zero reason to invest in human capital given the dictates continually being laid out by the radicals in the white house and their cohorts at NLRB. #$%$% 'em
    Nothing surprises me from this administration anymore, lets tell private companies who they can and can not hire. Lets just have the government tell private companies who is going to work for them.
  • QuakerOats
    jmog;896165 wrote:Nothing surprises me from this administration anymore, lets tell private companies who they can and can not hire. Lets just have the government tell private companies who is going to work for them.
    That is essentially where we are, in addition to how much to pay them, how much time off they can have, how they must be treated, how we have to insure them, how we have to allow unions run the shop, how, how, how, how , how ............ and some people wonder why unemployment is 20%.

    The only concern anyone in business has right now is 'can we survive until Nov '12'?

    PERIOD
  • gut
    QuakerOats;896059 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/a-gift-for-lawyers-in-obama-s-jobs-plan-the-ticker.html

    the assault continues ....... there is zero reason to invest in human capital given the dictates continually being laid out by the radicals in the white house and their cohorts at NLRB. #$%$% 'em
    That kind of sounds, or perhaps one application, like a business can't turn away an unemployed person who may be overqualified. Training and hiring costs be damned, you're assuming they are overqualified because they are unemployed and desperate.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;896187 wrote: The only concern anyone in business has right now is 'can we survive until Nov '12'?
    It looks to me like the criticisms of Keynesian policy are finally being validated. The theory is, of course, that deficit spending doesn't work because it's offset by increased savings in anticipation of future tax increases to pay for the deficit spending. Now, perhaps unsurprisingly, that hasn't historically been the case (and, oddly enough, the future taxes never materialized we just kept adding to the deficit). But we've finally gotten to the point where enough people are talking about it and the situation is so dire as to make future tax increases inevitable. And I think that's the reason the stimulus isn't working. Businesses don't and can't plan and invest on 12-16 month time horizons.

    I don't have the data, but my suspicion is that a disproportionate number of job creators fall into that $150-250k income class that ultimately gets soaked for all the poor and rich welfare. You're going to sock it to the small business owner making $250k and he's going to think long and hard about how to offset his tax increases by getting more mileage out of his equipment or not hiring an additional/replacement worker.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    This Solyndra thing is not looking good for the admin. Who the heck thought this was a good loan?
  • Writerbuckeye
    There were red flags raised by the agency that ultimately gave the loan. One of the memos even said the company was unstable and the money would run out in September of 2011 (which it did).

    All of that was ignored, because the administration wanted a political event to be held there on a certain date, so the loan was rushed through.

    By the way, Fremont, California, where the company is located, carried Obama in the election with something like 72 percent of the vote. Apparently, there are other examples of similar loans the administration has given out to areas that went heavily for him in the election.

    In the meantime, the Piketon plant in Ohio can't get a federal loan guarantee that would create 4,000 direct and indirect jobs in Ohio and an estimated 8,000 others across the nation. Even though the Department of Energy has put a lot of money into this project, Obama's administration has delayed the loan guarantee, probably because of Ohio's political situation.
  • QuakerOats
    Writerbuckeye;896931 wrote:In the meantime, the Piketon plant in Ohio can't get a federal loan guarantee that would create 4,000 direct and indirect jobs in Ohio and an estimated 8,000 others across the nation. Even though the Department of Energy has put a lot of money into this project, Obama's administration has delayed the loan guarantee, probably because of Ohio's political situation.

    :o That can't be; it flies in the face of 'change we can believe in'!
  • jhay78
    QuakerOats;896187 wrote:That is essentially where we are, in addition to how much to pay them, how much time off they can have, how they must be treated, how we have to insure them, how we have to allow unions run the shop, how, how, how, how , how ............ and some people wonder why unemployment is 20%.

    The only concern anyone in business has right now is 'can we survive until Nov '12'?

    PERIOD
    Sounds like the New New Deal, or more like New Deal II.
  • QuakerOats
    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-id-work-my-way-around-congress


    change we can believe in ....
  • Writerbuckeye
    He'd love to be dictator some day.

    He's almost halfway there...he is a pretty big dick. :cool:
  • jhay78
    There you go. Sounds like the musings of a moderate to me . . .
    This is the second time in recent months that Obama has publicly mused about going around Congress to enact immigration reform. In that speech to La Raza in July, he said that "some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own" -- a prospect Obama said he found "very tempting." But the president quickly added, "that's not how our system works."
  • BGFalcons82
    jhay78;897522 wrote:There you go. Sounds like the musings of a moderate to me . . .
    I wonder if he remembers saying these words:

    [INDENT]"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Oh wait...I forgot that we have a living constitution. The one written on old parchment is just a guideline anymore.


    [/INDENT]
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;897569 wrote:I wonder if he remembers saying these words:[INDENT]"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Oh wait...I forgot that we have a living constitution. The one written on old parchment is just a guideline anymore.
    Open to broad interpretation and disregard as the political winds dictate.
    [/INDENT]