Dow plummets 500+ points, Nasdaq down over 5%

• Footwedge

  Tobias Fünke;852678 wrote:I think the situations Bush and Obama inherited are somewhat similar and we should be judging them on how well they lead us out. Obama clearly thinks the American economy can rebound while he installs the liberal agenda, that much is fact..

  Elaborate please. How is his agenda any more liberal than previous presidents? Every president has done the following to stimulate the economy, bar none.
  
  1. Print gobs of money.
  2. Deficit spend like there's no tomorrow. (name even one that hasn't since Kennedy)
  3. Reduce the prime lending rate almost to the point of "free money" to borrow.
  4. Expand needless wars.
  
  If Obama's policy is viewed as liberal, then you can deduce that LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, and W as being decidedly liberal as well.
• Footwedge

  gut;852694 wrote:No, they're really not. Bailouts are more of a loan, and one where the govt got almost all of its money back (more, actually, if you consider the tax revenues that would have been lost and taking on GM's pension in the PBGC if you let GM go under). The stimulus literally flushed a bunch of money down the toilet.

  Obviously they are not exactly the same. But the means to a perceived end are in fact the same. I.e. to improve the stability of the economy at any given moment....at the expense of future generations.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;852680 wrote:Gotta disagree with some of his main arguments:
  
  
  
  Bad logic. So if his advisers thought a $10 Trillion dollar stimulus bill was necessary, and he only opted for $5 Trill, would that still make him a conservative. So he's not as whacked out as his advisers, but that doesn't make him a conservative.
  
  
  
  Ehhh, maybe. If he had his way Gitmo would be nonexistent.
  
  
  
  Stop it. His plan was similar to Mitt Romney's, therefore he's leaning conservative? Yikes.
  
  
  
  I chalk that up to politics. Dealing with the other party who has a majority in Congress is different from how he acts with his own party holding majorities. Key word is "caved", meaning he didn't get what he wanted, meaning he's not really the conservative Bartlett thinks he is.

  
  You're confusing hardcore, unrelenting no-comprise conservatism and moderate conservatism IMHO. Bruce Bartlett is not arguing that Barack Obama is Sarah Palin. A healthcare plan that requires people to buy health insurance is moderately conservative (newt gingrich and Bob Dole and Tom Daschle all supported this), while a healthcare plan that eliminates all public health care and eliminates employer coverage and removes the state protectionist measures in the health insurance market and policy makers not caring whether or not the whole population has health insurance as that is their independent free choice to insure themselves might be Very Conservative, IMHO.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oh my God. Did someone like Kos or Soros issues new talking points that Obama is the "new" conservative?
  
  What a flaming bunch of bull shit.
  
  Obama, when in Congress, had one of the most liberal voting records of any Representative.
  
  He believes that government should be doing just about everything, and wants higher taxes to pay for it.
  
  He believes in regulating businesses to the point that we now have an atmosphere so heavy with fear of what's to come, no businesses are doing anything. They're sitting on a ton of cash and wondering what the next blow will be.
  
  He believes we should be using "green" technology even when it's unable to pay for its own costs and has to be subsidized by the government.
  
  He believes in mass transit, even if it can't pay for itself and has to be paid for by the government.
  
  He believes in abortion on-demand, regardless of how viable the fetus might be.
  
  There is very little about this man you can call conservative with a straight face.
  
  So he continued a couple wars and kept Gitmo open...so what?
  
  Those were POLITICAL REALITIES that had nothing to do with his political philosophy. Obama is, above all else, a political animal who wants to be re-elected. He's not going to do some things right now that might jeopardize his chances.
  
  The only reason he's been reigned in at all, is because his overtly liberal agenda woke the American people up and they kicked the House back to the Republicans in an effort to try and at least slow him down.
  
  And as for Clinton -- the ONLY reason you can say he was moderate in how he presided is because he had to face a Congress that was conservative and forced him to the center. If he'd have had the same conditions as Obama, he would likely have done many of the same things.
• gut

  Footwedge;852699 wrote:Obviously they are not exactly the same. But the means to a perceived end are in fact the same. I.e. to improve the stability of the economy at any given moment....at the expense of future generations.

  
  What is the expense to a future generation when a "bailout" has a higher ROI then not bailing out? They got their bailout money back, in a relatively short-time frame and from a net-debt perspective, it's a wash because these loans are a deferred asset offsetting the debt liability.
  
  The deficit spending, at least this time around (and still debateable in the past), was clearly money down the drain. The difference is a loan vs. a hand-out. If you think those are remotely the same, then let me ask you for a handout as opposed to a loan.
• Ty Webb

  

  ccrunner609;852661 wrote:looks like Italy is going after a balanced budget agreement.........ours is coming soon.

  
  Do Republicans really want President Obama to sign a balanced budget agreement?
• Classyposter58

  

  Ehh Obama needs to go. Hopefully someone with a clue rises up to challenge him but he really hasn't made this country any better and I just don't have confidence in him
• queencitybuckeye

  Ty Webb;852769 wrote:Do Republicans really want President Obama to sign a balanced budget agreement?

  
  No, hopefully they are sincere in their desire for a balanced budget amendment, a process in which the president has no role.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;852631 wrote:First of all, if it is true that President Obama has made unemployment worse it is because he has been focusing on the deficit just like Conservatives want and did not create and adequate stimulus because he wanted to court Ben Nelson, Olympia Snowe, Joe Lieberman, etc.

  
  If $4 trillion in government spending per year is an inadequate Keynesian stimulus, then I would hate to see an adequate one. We might as well print the money and set fire to it.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Ty Webb;852769 wrote:Do Republicans really want President Obama to sign a balanced budget agreement?

  
  I would vote for him in 2012 if he sold his party on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
• Ty Webb

  

  Cleveland Buck;852870 wrote:I would vote for him in 2012 if he sold his party on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

  
  Buck....What I meant by the question is this:
  
  If he was able to sell our party on a balanced budget amendment(which I am already in favor of)...do you not think more and more Republicans would support him and they would 100% insure his re-election
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Ty Webb;852898 wrote:Buck....What I meant by the question is this:
  
  If he was able to sell our party on a balanced budget amendment(which I am already in favor of)...do you not think more and more Republicans would support him and they would 100% insure his re-election

  
  I'm sure he would get some Republicans and a whole lot of independents to vote for him and would pretty much guarantee reelection. Of course, if we pass a balanced budget amendment the first thing he would have to do is sign the repeal of Obamakare, and there is a better chance of him not running at all in 2012 and endorsing George W. Bush than him doing either of those things.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;852701 wrote:You're confusing hardcore, unrelenting no-comprise conservatism and moderate conservatism IMHO. Bruce Bartlett is not arguing that Barack Obama is Sarah Palin. A healthcare plan that requires people to buy health insurance is moderately conservative (newt gingrich and Bob Dole and Tom Daschle all supported this), while a healthcare plan that eliminates all public health care and eliminates employer coverage and removes the state protectionist measures in the health insurance market and policy makers not caring whether or not the whole population has health insurance as that is their independent free choice to insure themselves might be Very Conservative, IMHO.

  
  I know the difference- I probably should've qualified the word "conservative" in my post. My point was that Bartlett is underestimating the political realities of the balance of powers between the three branches. Reagan (to the right) and Obama (to the left) could not fully govern as they wished; but there's plenty of evidence that shows definitively which side of the aisle they stood on, and how far from the center they stood.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Boatshoes post got me thinking about the 1937 recession. The only economic growth from 1932-37 was from government spending, so obviously cutting that spending would hurt that "growth". And of course, raising taxes in a weak economy never helps anything. The real economy didn't grow until after World War II when we were the only industrialized country left to rebuild the world. We were extraordinarily lucky for that.
  
  What is happening right now is the same exact thing. The only growth we have right now is an increase in spending. Nothing is being stimulated, just like in the 1930s, but that money is what is holding up the economy right now. This time, however, it doesn't appear that a world war is on the horizon that would leave us unscathed. We need to hope that before spending has to be drastically cut that we find some policies that will encourage real economic growth, or the spending cuts will have the appearance of hurting the economy. We could try cutting corporate and capital gains taxes and abolishing wage controls (unions) and relaxing regulations. These things should help encourage growth, but that is if our system of inflated numbers isn't too far gone to be helped anymore.
• Footwedge

  gut;852756 wrote:What is the expense to a future generation when a "bailout" has a higher ROI then not bailing out? They got their bailout money back, in a relatively short-time frame and from a net-debt perspective, it's a wash because these loans are a deferred asset offsetting the debt liability.
  
  The deficit spending, at least this time around (and still debateable in the past), was clearly money down the drain. The difference is a loan vs. a hand-out. If you think those are remotely the same, then let me ask you for a handout as opposed to a loan.

  TARP money has been repaid and everything is now hunky dory? Smoking the 'spensive stuff haven't you? This is the exact same twisted logic that convoludes the right's line of thinking. Corporate welfare===good. Public welfare== bad.
  
  How in the hell can you even remotely posit that the bailout "succeeded" and the other deficit spending was "money down the drain"?
  
  Deficit spending is deficit spending.
  
  Oh....and I'm sure that you will be happy to know. All those CEO's that "took advantage of" the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, written by 3 scumbag Republicans...are now again making their 60 million per year....while the rest of us are dealing with the same crap economy.
• Footwedge

  Cleveland Buck;853073 wrote:Boatshoes post got me thinking about the 1937 recession. The only economic growth from 1932-37 was from government spending, so obviously cutting that spending would hurt that "growth". And of course, raising taxes in a weak economy never helps anything. The real economy didn't grow until after World War II when we were the only industrialized country left to rebuild the world. We were extraordinarily lucky for that.
  
  What is happening right now is the same exact thing. The only growth we have right now is an increase in spending. Nothing is being stimulated, just like in the 1930s, but that money is what is holding up the economy right now. This time, however, it doesn't appear that a world war is on the horizon that would leave us unscathed. We need to hope that before spending has to be drastically cut that we find some policies that will encourage real economic growth, or the spending cuts will have the appearance of hurting the economy. We could try cutting corporate and capital gains taxes and abolishing wage controls (unions) and relaxing regulations. These things should help encourage growth, but that is if our system of inflated numbers isn't too far gone to be helped anymore.

  
  Good post...and there are ways to stimulate the private sector right here in the USA. But it will never happen....because those that control the money AND CONTROL the government are not interested in the American people....they are interested in maximizing profit...by moving overseas, where circumvention of all worker, and all human rights is the norm.
  
  Comparative advantage is an ecominic phrase discussed by both Adam Smith and David Ricardo....2 of the most recognized economists of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The phrase was coined citing how different countries have differing natural resources, allowing workers of their respective countries to be most efficient in their production...and thus maximize trade value. Today the "comparative advantage" takes on a whole new meaning. Comparative advantage involves sweatshop labor, no safety laws, no environmental laws, and absolutely no safety nets for the oversea operations.
  
  In order to bridge the gap, our presidents since Reagan have expanded the government....in order to keep the masses employed. But we don't make anything tangible anymore....escept F-22's and other munitions....which contribute NOTHING to our overall wealth. Absolutely nothing.
  
  So again....I reiterate....there is a very simple solution to the national debt, the high unemployment, and the rotting away of the very fabric that made America what we once were. Punish corporate America for selling out their souls in their unAmerican mission statements of utilizing sweat shop labor to enhance their bottom lines. Conversely rewarding these same corporations (huge tax breaks) for bringing back the "tradable goods" market to the states.
• sleeper

  

  Something tells me if we start punishing US corporations for trying to maximize shareholder value, they will pack up and leave. Then what, Footwedge?
• Footwedge

  sleeper;853290 wrote:Something tells me if we start punishing US corporations for trying to maximize shareholder value, they will pack up and leave. Then what, Footwedge?

  Apparently you did not read what I said. I said that corporations should be rewarded through tax cuts if they stay here in this country to manufacture tradable goods. Reread it.
• jmog

  Ty Webb;852490 wrote:And Bush also lost over 6 million jobs and we were the closest to another depression as we have ever been under his watch...
  
  So again...were you asking for him to resign Quaker?
  
  You guys are always on my ass you back-up claims I make with something to support it....Bell should be held to the same standard

  The Unemployment rate under Bush was under 5% for nearly his whole 8 years, then in 2008 when the markets crashed it went from 5% to 7.4% when Bush left office. Since Obama took over it has gone from 7.4% to as high as 10.1% and now is at 9.2%.
  
  Please don't compare the unemployment rate under Bush to Obama, it makes you look bad, you are smarter than that.
• jmog

  Footwedge;852681 wrote:The link to Mr. Bartlett's article was greatly appreciated, Boat. What a well written article. People that engulf the diarrhea spewed by Rush Limbaugh actually beieve that Clinton was a flaming liberal. Clinton was always moderate right....even during his reign in Arkansas.
  
  Now the same crowd has annointed the "annointed one" as a flaming liberal as well...and who's goal is to "wreck the economy". Kudos to Mr. Bartlett for showing Obama for what he really is.....a war mongering, yet political moderate.

  
  Clinton was a left winger until his congress shifted to the Rs early on, at that point Clinton was a very smart man and became a right leaning moderate. He did NOT start off his first term as a moderate.
• jmog

  Ty Webb;852769 wrote:Do Republicans really want President Obama to sign a balanced budget agreement?

  
  Absolutely.
• jmog

  Ty Webb;852898 wrote:Buck....What I meant by the question is this:
  
  If he was able to sell our party on a balanced budget amendment(which I am already in favor of)...do you not think more and more Republicans would support him and they would 100% insure his re-election

  
  The independants would support him for sure which is what it takes to win an election.
  
  The far right wingers would never vote for him, just like the far left wingers will never vote for an "R". But yes, if he convinced the Ds in Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment I truly believe we'd see a 2nd term for Obama.
• gut

  Footwedge;853283 wrote:TARP money has been repaid and everything is now hunky dory? Smoking the 'spensive stuff haven't you? This is the exact same twisted logic that convoludes the right's line of thinking. Corporate welfare===good. Public welfare== bad.

  LMAO, another ignorant talking point pushed by both sides to hijack the reality. Don't call it corporate welfare - welfare implies a handout that never has to be repaid. Heck, in some cases many people on "real" welfare have never paid a dime in taxes to begin with.
  
  No, my line of thinking is simply public welfare = not good and corporate "welfare" not welfare.
• Footwedge

  jmog;853366 wrote:Clinton was a left winger until his congress shifted to the Rs early on, at that point Clinton was a very smart man and became a right leaning moderate. He did NOT start off his first term as a moderate.

  Clinton was always moderate right. Look up Southern Democrat...or better yet, look up his policies as governor of Arkansas.
• Footwedge

  gut;853419 wrote:LMAO, another ignorant talking point pushed by both sides to hijack the reality. Don't call it corporate welfare - welfare implies a handout that never has to be repaid. Heck, in some cases many people on "real" welfare have never paid a dime in taxes to begin with.
  
  No, my line of thinking is simply public welfare = not good and corporate "welfare" not welfare.

  Oh...it's corporate welfare...for sure. Since when is the government (or the tax payers more precisely) liable or responsible for making loans? Isn't that the job of the banks? Oh that's right, it was the banks that needed the welfare bailout in the first place. My bad.
  
  Nice to see the CEO's of the banking cartel making 60 million a year again, eh? Gotta have those rich bankers, ya know.
  
  America's oligopolies....privatize the gains and socialize the losses.