When was FDR's New Deal initiated?

When did the economy recover from the Depression?

When did the stock market crash?

When did it reach a new peak after the crash?

What was the average unemployment rate during FDR's Presidency?

If you begin to honestly look at the answers to those questions, your perseption may change.

Filterton for god sakes, talk a bout sticking with a line of argumentation, and I've only been on this for two posting sessions.

Noone has dissputed any of the behaviors I mentioned earlier, nor have they confronted them when they happen on this very board. Just making that clear, I'll just copy these down and paste them every time you bring up how persecuted liberal thought is.

And a relatively minor point of fact mentioned 6 months ago, has put filterton in a sort of cognitive quicksand. sorry dude. Get over it.

I'm just saying. Your sudden need for documented evidence seems suspect in light of your previous aversion to it.

By all means, keep asking for evidence and keep on pedantically denying the relevance of any evidence actually offered.

http://www.fasttrackteaching.com/Une...ent_300g15.gif

http://www.urbandigs.com/great-depression-gdp.jpg

And see that bump up in unemployment in 1938? That was the one year FDR tightened the budget a bit.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b8...expenrecep.png

So dropping the unemployment rate about 3% a year sounds pretty good to me.

I'm starting to suspect that matthew has been educated by GoPAC. He's basically setting up the premise that nothing can refute his claims because anything that does refute his claims doesn't count because he hasn't heard of the congresswoman, or because it happened more than 30 minutes ago. Or, better yet, we'll just pretend none of this has happened and continue to make our point as though no one has refuted what we've said.

If you watch a typical republican interview on TV, they use tactics exactly like this. You ask them why they did X. They deny doing X. You show them a videotape of them doing X. They still deny doing X, and pretend the tape never happened.

It's really amazing how slickly they pull this off but, ya know what? The public isn't fooled by that crap anymore, because the lies and incompetence have finally hit them in the pocketbook rather than having a theoretical future negative result.

We simply will disagree. I see the recession of 1937 as a consequence of government spending. I don't deny that government spending can have a temporary impact on the economy, but my position is that the spending will lead to higher taxation on the economy or inflation slowing the economy. I think the recession of 1937 shows government spending is not the answer.

I think the clear lasting spark for the economy was war production and productivity gains from the innovations during that period.

Well then we must all be hallucinating this crappy economy, because we're in the middle of 2 wars, war production is high, and yet the economy's in the crapper. If the war pulled us out of the Great Depression then why are we in a major recession despite having been at war for 8 years?

That could be, but one thing that's often overlooked is that in terms of living conditions, the wartime period was even WORSE than during the Depression itself. There was rationing, even longer bread lines, etc. Unemployment dropped because we were suddenly making tanks, but a lot of that was from people who had never previously been employed (and who were therefore not counted in previous unemployment figures)--think Rosie the Riveter. Many of the previously unemployed went and died in trenches, which isn't exactly a step up if you ask me. In short, the wartime numbers were higher on the economy, but people didn't really SEE anything from that, mostly that was being spent on the war itself.

It was actually the post-war era when the real results started showing up on the street, economically speaking. By then there were LOTS of factors coming to bear on the economy well beyond simple government expenditure. In that sense, it's not really accurate to say that war spending was what ended the Great Depression. At least, it's an oversimplification.

but even if that argument held--which leans on the quite non-conservative claim that the american capitalist system was once geared around over-production and required ways to dump that over-production in order to operate at anything like full capacity---which is the war economy argument....even if that held, what possible relation would there be between the 1930s and 40s in terms of geography of production and the contemporary period, which insofar as the united states is concerned in particular, is one of deindustrialization?

this is not unlike the other rb's question above, but gets to another register of problem as well.

Very simply put, in WW2 our factories were near capacity in churning out goods both for military and civilian use. When the war ended people came home and mass consumerism began, the factories were churning out products for consumers, the military was pumping money into companies for R&D and we had come through the Depression because of the war, the VA loans for housing and education. Companies thrived because the government helped them with lucrative contracts and because we were building highways and a great infrastructure.

Reagan started it by taking away the lucrative contracts. Then we got "free trade"....

Now, we are at war but our industry doesn't produce anything. The R&D contracts don't help put people to work, the infrastructure has been largely ignored and is falling apart. We rely on steel, cars, and manufacturing from overseas so a war isn't pulling us out like last time. If anything it is hurting us because we became reliant on the goods from other countries.

So to compare how WW2 brought us out and how this war isn't helping is foolish. Times are different. In WW2 we were self reliant and produced.... this war we are dependent and have little production and that which we do have is in severe trouble because of our reliance on foreign made goods.

WWII is very different from our current war in terms of the scope and impact on our economy. If I recall WWII in terms of people, production and spending was consuming well over 25% of our economy. No war since as come close to that.
-----Added 19/2/2009 at 02 : 58 : 32-----
During the war government spending was extremely high in order to support the war. After the war the normal economy greatly benefited from war time innovation and productivity gains. It was this application of spending in the private sector that gave us long lasting prosperity.

We can dance around the central question all day long but at the root Keynesian people won't address the question of - when does government spending begin to have a negative impact on economic growth? There simply is no free ride with government spending.

Precisely. which is what the stimulus should be doing right now.


Admittedly, but to claim that FDR's new deal had nothing to do with getting us out of the depression, and that the war had everything to do with it, is equally foolish. Giving shitloads of money to the corporations isn't what saved us in the 30's. Giving money to the middle class, who went out and bought stuff, is what saved us.

And Laffer people won't address the question of - When does giving all of the money to the rich finally grind the economy to a halt because the rich have all the money?

I am a supply sider and I will readily admit the laws of diminishing returns when it comes to tax rate cuts. A 10% reduction in marginal tax rates when the highest applicable rate being paid is 100% has a bigger impact than if that rate is 1%. I think there is a theoretical equilibrium marginal tax rate, a point where taxes received by the government is maximized against the benefits of economic growth

. I wonder if Kaynsian's believe the law of diminishing returns applies to fiscal policy or spending by the government. I can accept that government spending on something like education, when there was no previous spending on education could have a positive impact on economic growth. However, I think the benefit of government spending on education quickly diminishes when a basic infrastructure for education is in place and that additional spending by government becomes inefficient and wasteful. And that after a basic education infrastructure is in place private sector spending will be the most beneficial.

I think you mis-characterize the intent of American capitalism. I think it is geared to equilibrium production or equilibrium period and not over production. I think that explains our normal business cycles. Over-production is followed by under-production, which is followed by over-production, etc, all in search of equilibrium. If you argue this is inefficient I only agree to the point that sometimes the feedback mechanism is inefficient. However, I think this feedback mechanism will almost always be more efficient in the private sector than in the public sector.

Keynes (and Obama for that matter) say that TEMPORARY, SHORT-TERM government spending can TEMPORARILY take the place, for a SHORT TERM, of private-sector spending in propelling an economy. Obviously the hope is that it's of SHORT enough TERM that it's not a burden later. The fact is, a pure Keynesian move like this has never truly been done before. What happened in the Depression/WW2 was different as I outlined above (and which you seem to pretty much concur with). This is untried territory. Any reasonable person has lots of question marks about it.

But look, the other options are:
- Put money into the top of society so it trickles down (Which is absurd, because you really think the rich got rich by giving money away? That's been a losing hand for 90% of America for the last 20 years.)
- Manipulating interest rates (A reasonable tool that broke irretrievably the day the fed set the overnight lending rate at 0% and the TED spread didn't move an inch.)

What else are you going to do, ace? Sit it out and hope the unemployment bomb doesn't drop on you or someone you love? Okay, fine, as a private citizen, you might do that. But if you're the president, what do you do? Tell people to keep hope alive while they collect social security? You gotta do something, don't you? You were elected to do something. What would YOU do?

Quite the opposite--Keynes claims a multiplication effect. Keynes postulated that each dollar the government spends is worth well MORE than a dollar, as it circulates through the economy. The buck you pay the guy to build the bridge gets spent in the bar that night, and the bartender spends it again to the beer company, and the beer company pays the secretary.... Each dollar gets multiplied. To me that sounds a bit like counting your chickens three times before they hatch, but it's what Keynes said. Google "Keynes Multiplier" for more on that--Wikipedia explains it well (and in somewhat fairer terms than I just did).

We can let a handful of bureaucrats pick the market winners or we can let market participants pick the winners. Either way there will be winners. the problem with government picking the winners is that if they pick inefficient winners we all suffer, i.e. GM.

If government spending is the answer, why would we ever have recessions or depressions? The answer would be to simply spend more "government money".

The list of the richest people in America is dynamic. The list today is very different than the list 10/20/30 years ago. Our economy is always creating new rich people. this cycle has lead to prosperity for all of us because of the chase for innovation, productivity gains, creativity, and efficiency. If I can be more productive than you and I get rewarded for that, and then you innovate becoming more productive than me, and the cycle continues, we get stronger and better. This natural selection process is what capitalism is all about.

I'll agree that we shouldn't be bailing out the corporations. I'd rather see them split that 780 billion dollars amongst the lower and middle class on an individual basis (because if, say, the poor guy suddenly has 250,000 bucks, he's gonna go buy things, and that, would bail out the corporations.

But either way, the government's gonna have to spend money.



You've had 28 years to do it your way - reduced government spending, deregulation, letting corporations do almost whatever they want. . .Hasn't worked well, has it?



Not as dynamic as you claim. Obviously it's gonna be somewhat dynamic because even the rich can't buy their way out of dying (well. not forever, anyway).

Tell that to the people who are out of work because of this. . prosperous. . economy. Tell that to the people who are losing their houses because their company laid them off because the economy is in such wonderful shape that no one wants to spend any money. That cycle led to fake prosperity for some of us (you conveniently forget that even when the economy was good, we had homeless people starving on the streets), but it was unsustainable prosperity because wages were going down, jobs were being outsourced, and people were having to borrow to maintain that illusion of prosperity. We've not had prosperity in this country for anyone but the very wealthy since Reagan's policies started having an effect. We've only had the illusion thereof, which was enough to fool people into letting the republicans screw with the economy far longer than they should have, but as we can see it's all come crashing down now.


It is disingenuous to the hilt to proclaim as excellent and prosperous the economic theories which ended in a tremendous financial crash felt around the globe.

Obama's premise is that only government can solve our current problems, I think his premise is flawed. I also think that he has failed to outline the long-term impact of his plan.

there are already signs the economy will hit the bottom and then start to improve before the "stimulus" takes hold. It reminds me of the story about a guy going to the doctor with a common cold. The doc say to take two aspirin and call him in a few days. the guy is better, and thinks the doctor visit and taking the aspirin was the cure.

Sure there is a multiplier, but that can be offset by inflation or increased taxes in the future. The government creates money, but they don't. the government spends money that was taxed, so they spend a dollar taken from someone. No net multiplier. The government uses deficit spending, this is paid back with interest in the form of inflation or higher future taxes - short-term multiplier then it gets reversed plus interest.

If you think this is a response to what I said about the principle of the Keynesian multiplier, but I assert you missed the boat on what it is. Which is fine with me, I don't 100% buy it myself, and I'm not looking for you to argue for or against it in particular. But if what I said was, "Baseball is a game played on a diamond with a ball and a bat," then what you said was, "I like gummy bears." Just so you know.

There is a multiplier. Any dollar introduced into the economy if from government or any other source has a multiplier. However, this fails to describe what happens next. The question that begs an answer - can you create something from nothing? It is not like "poof" the government can introduce a new dollar with real economic value into the economy. My point is that they can print another dollar, but it won't have real economic value unless it is backed by something real.

the gold standard is long dead.

Your verification that WWII, not the New Deal, was what propelled us out of the Great Depression was well done. I would also have included a comparison of unemployment in the US vs. the rest of the world in the wake of the New Deal to further demonstrate the accuracy of your opinion. With the benefit of historical perspective, it is ludicrous to cling to the claim that the New Deal did anything but worsen our economic woes.

That claim may, however, serve a purpose in distracting us from other aspects of Obama's performance:

U.S. sticks with Bush position on Bagram detainees | Reuters
:bowdown: CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Obama = Hitler!

the idea that somehow saying that it was the second world war that ended the great depression goes against Keynesian principles is one of the biggest puzzles around for me. "No, it wasnt government intervention aimed at building stuff at home that ended the great depression, it was government intervention aimed at destroying things abroad that did it." As if from an economic perspective building bombs and planes that are going to be destroyed abroad was completely different from doing, well, anything within the US borders... If anything, that perspective says that government spending and interventions should be much, much larger than it actually is right now. Maybe the US should declare a pretend war against the bottom of the ocean and spend massive amounts of money on creating a hole at the bottom of the ocean.

Heres my take on it simplified and in a nutshell:

Money coming in from countries buying American goods such as food, supplies, guns, planes and tanks for their own war effort was a huge contributor in spending us out of the Great Depression. The post war boom was primarily funded by foreign countries buying American goods to rebuild all that was destroyed during the war. Even though we are in two wars now things aren't the same because most of our war effort is imported rather than exported as it was back then. The idea that spending a trillion dollars to build bridges and changing light bulbs in government buildings without generating any real wealth is somehow going to miraculously drag us out of a terrible recession long term is asinine to say the least. It will definitely help short term but it's not a long term fix by any stretch of the imagination. Until we get the trade deficit turned around and start deporting goods and importing foreign monies again things are only going to get worse over the long term.

Sure, if you want to ignore the facts.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a/Gdp20-40.jpg

Five years of negative GDP growth between '28-'33, followed by eight years of economic growth when the New Deal programs kicked in (rising GDP, with the exception of '37 when FDR cut New Deal spending).....all of which took place before any war spending.

BTW, the "lend-lease" policy of supplying the UK, France, USSR (and other allies) with war materials didnt start until early "41.

To what do you attribute those eight years of pre-war sustained economic growth if not the spending and job creation programs of the New Deal?

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 AM ----------

No one, including Obama, has suggested its a "long term" fix.

It is a short term initiative to hopefully stop the continued downward slide and stabilize the economy.

If you want a long term fix, start with the outsourced jobs. We have fewer jobs in this country ever since companies started outsourcing the jobs to China and other countries. This one's easy to fix. "Hey 3M. . .How much money did you save last year by using workers in Taiwan instead of your own country? 700 million? Guess how much your taxes just went up."

Then start actually making shit here again. We have no heavy industry, medium-heavy industry is decimated. . .We don't make anything anymore. We aren't generating wealth, we're just moving theoretical money around in computer systems. That's no way to run an economy.

We've been arguing a lot on whether or not the New Deal brought us out of the depression. The "war saved us" guys do have a point - - we made a bunch of crap for that war. Actually made it. And when the war was over, the factories made other things which were bought by Americans. This one's gonna be different because even if people get money again, a lot of it is gonna go overseas. Want a new TV? Will that be Toshiba, Sony, or Panasonic? Want a new car? Well the only viable choice, especially right now with the US companies in so much trouble, is between Germany or Japan. Maybe Korea if you don't mind burning oil after 50k miles ;) Hell even our kids toys. . .Even /pencils/ are made in China. We need to get back to making stuff again, as that provides not only things for people to buy, but jobs to give them money to buy it with.

And all this crap about "it's a GLOBAL economy" is bumkus. If it were a true global economy then we wouldn't be able to hire some Chinese guy for 1 cent on the dollar. If it were a true global economy then there wouldn't be any such thing as trade deficits because it would be all one economy. It's not a global economy, that's just the excuse the asshole corporations use to explain why they're employing some 14 year old in Malaysia at slave wages instead of making good jobs available to the people that they want money from.

so it was the collective spending of governments around the world that pulled the world out of the great depression? Yep, still Keynes. Although to be accurate the recovery did start long before WWII.

From the chart you so conveniently provided us there was only 4 years of sustained growth between mid 1933 and mid 1937 and then there was approximately a one year decline between mid 1937 to mid 1938 and then there is a fairly steady increase until the chart ends. I'm very well aware that the lend lease started in 1941 but our European allies was officially and unofficially buying American goods almost from the beginning of the war. The "Battle for the Atlantic" with it's convoys of ships and vital supply lines from the west began in 1939 and lasted until the end of the war. The lend/lease program was a last ditch effort primarily help Great Britain and Russia during a time when their cash reserves was low. On a side note it wasn't until 2005 or 2006 they {Great Britain} finally made their last payment.

---------- Post added at 01:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:00 AM ----------

I guess you could say that however I don't think the Great Depression affected the world economy like our current banking crisis has. There was a great demand for US goods and we profited with good paying jobs which helped bring us out of the gutter. This time there is no demand for US goods and no wealth flowing in from around the world. Once the trillion or three is spent and we begin paying interest with no money flowing in how long to you suppose Keynes theory will hold up? Keynes theory or not we can't continue to have a negative trade imbalance while shuffling the same money and notes between banks and ever have any hope of sustained growth.

Here is a result of Obama's policies, both past and present. His "community organizing" with ACORN goes way back. The $31 million in taxpayer money they've received is apparently not enough for these thugs.


This is what you get when the president of the US tells you it's acceptable to renege on your mortgage payments. Someone on Youtube claims to have dug up some public records information on this poor, unfortunate woman:

While I have not verified that information, it IS documented that the "greedy" bank no longer owns that house. In slightly over a month, we citizens no longer have a right to our money OR our homes!

Can we steal from the law-abiding to give to the lawless? YES WE CAN!

The great depression was global and affected the world economy quite significantly. In fact, global trade only reached pre great depression levels recently.

You know the campaign's over, right? So you don't have to pretend that ACORN is some huge pervasive boogeyman organization anymore.

What I want to know, is how much money Bill Ayers is getting out of the stimulus?

This is the second time the above chart has been used here as proof that government deficit spending was the cause of economic recovery. It has be awhile since I seriously looked at Depression era data, and thought I would revisit some of the data given some of the conclusions being drawn from negative economic growth starting in 1937. I will just give raw data, from government sources, draw your own conclusions.

Here is the M1 money supply in billions:

1931 - 24.1
1932 - 21.1
1933 - 19.9
1934 - 21.9
1935 - 25.9
1936 - 29.6
1937 - 30.9
1938 - 30.5
1939 - 34.2

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm

Here is total government expenditures (first column) and total government "Civil and miscellaneous" expenditures (second column

1931 - 4.0 - 1.1
1932 - 5.1 - 2.1
1933 - 5.1 - 2.1
1934 - 7.1 - 4.6
1935 - 7.3 - 4.3
1936 - 8.8 - 4.1
1937 - 8.1 - 4.7
1938 - 7.7 - 4.9

One interesting note regarding the drop in spending between 1937 and 1938 - in 1937 there was 2.3 billion spent by the Bureau of Pension and Veterans Administration and 1.1 billion spent in 1938 and actual spending in the area of Civil and miscellaneous went up.

And next let's look at the actual deficit (first column) and tax receipts (second column).

1931- (.9) - 3.1
1932 - (3.1) - 2.0
1933 - (3.0) - 2.0
1934 - (3.9) - 3.1
1935 - (3.5) - 3.8
1936 - (4.7) - 4.1
1937 - (2.8) - 5.2
1938 - (1.5) - 6.2

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/statcom...ts/1937-07.pdf
1901-1950 Statistical Abstracts

When I look at the data I don't see government spending or government deficit spending as the driver of our recovery from the depression the depression. I do think there is a clearer connection with money supply growth and economic recovery. I do give government credit for that, however I still hold that deficit spending does not have a lasting positive impact on the economy and that increased taxes or increased inflation cancels any positive impact of deficit spending.

No one is saying that deficit generate lasting growth. But it is not supposed to. It is supposed to provide some growth in a tight situation.

And while the increase in the money supply had a great deal to do with the recovery, there are two important points:

- we are already at 0% fed rates. This is a liquidity trap, additional money will not help. Only fiscal stimulus will.
- You seem to be holding on to what in the 1920s was called the treasury view. I.e., one dollar in deficit today means an proportionally equal increase in taxes tomorrow.

But this is not the case, because of three variables: the multiplier, the velocity of money circulation, and interest rates. So in other words, spending today will increase the velocity of the circulation of money. As long as the multiplier is not zero or negative, then we are talking about that dollar generating additional growth. So that dollar you spend today becomes that dollar + whatever growth you have tomorrow. As long as that dollar today + interest rates are not more than that, you are paying back proportionally less than what you spent.

Now, this means that in situations when you have a growing economy, deficit spending simply will crowd out private investment. This is true and this took place during the Bush years, which is why I think anyone concerned with fiscal discipline should have said something 4 years ago, not now.

But all of this also means that in situations where the economy is tanking, and interest rates are very low and the economy is still falling, any deficit spending will have a net positive effect. In a economy where tbond yields are close to 0%, and where the fed rate is 0%, government spending is not crowding out private spending. Any growth the govt. spending generates, even if temporary and very, very small, means that the one dollar they are spending today will be repaid by less than a dollar tomorrow.

There was an interesting story on NPR today about Japan's "lost decade". Essentially their real estate market crashed just like ours and through them into a recession. At first they tried to lower interest rates and even lowered them down to almost 0% but it didn't help at all. In the end they had to do lots of deficit spending to get out of the recession.

Are you saying the point is for us to fool ourselves? Why even waste time with something that will have negative consequences in the future, why not take our lumps and pay the price for lasting sustained growth? If what you believe is shared by the folks in Washington, then I agree with McCain - "generational theft". We should do what we know will work - long-term.

The government can grow the M1 money supply by going into the market and simply buying back government bonds, notes, and T-Bills. The opposite of deficit spending. Oh, but one problem is that China holds so much of our debt and they may not want to spend their dollars in the US economy. Gee, we are in a endless negative cycle. At some point we have to pay the price.

They could also give back tax dollars to people who pay taxes, but we know that is not going to happen but let's give more money to failing banks, auto companies, home owners, and state governments like California. Screw those doing the right thing and those who can actually have a positive impact on economic growth.

---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

Another problem with deficit spending is that often governments, and I bet NPR did not discuss this, sucks the energy (capital/resources/opportunity) from the private sector. an example from our Depression during the 30's

Featured Article - WSJ.com

I dont think you got what I was saying. The point is not to "fool" ourselves, but to provide growth during a recession. Then as the economy pulls out of it, you can cut spending.

Now, as far as the money supply goes, the m1 fetish is severely outdated. Interest rates matter more nowadays than targeted money supply, and we are already at 0.

It is not generational theft, as I pointed out that there is a net social profit from that spending.

In any case, it is damn dishonest for McCain to talk shit like that after he approved the last 8 years of deficit spending. Specially when the republican response is "more tax cuts." Bush already generated 32 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for the next generation, and McCain was right there with him.

And with regards to the great depression, people might argue about the role of govt. spending, but virtually every economist saw at least some usefulness in at least part of the new deal. Not that everything was great, but there were a great many programs that helped.

And with regards to the current situation, only the republican faithful see no role for fiscal stimulus. When even Greg Mankiw, Posner, and Gary Beck see a role for fiscal stimulus (although they disagree with the democrats on the shape of the stimulus), you know it is needed.

I understood. My point is that "government stimulus spending" is like taking a drug that gives you a burst of energy and then causes an equal and opposite reaction when the drug wears off. I prefer a proper diet, proper rest and to train my body for the tasks I need to accomplish. No short cuts.

I don't agree that maney supply analysis is outdated. And, there are different ways to measure interest rates or the true cost of money/capital. The rate you get on a savings account is not reflective of real interest rates or the real cost of capital. A business wanting to invest in growth can not get a loan at 0%.

The only net profit occurs when the investment made by government gives a higher return than if that investment was made by the private sector. For example our investment in the interstate highway system was most likely a profitable investment by government.

Also, the "stimulus" bill was not really a stimulus bill, it is a spending bill and they sold it as a stimulus bill. Many of the projects were already planned and money was going to be spent on them anyway. That is not new spending. In some cases the federal government is spending money that the states would have spent. That is not new spending. The government targeting "green" industries may prove to be wasteful and have unintended consequences, like the past focus on ethanol subsidy and the impact those subsidies had on the cost of food.

It was generational theft then and it is now. Other than McCain being a hypocrite, which I agree with, what is your point? Are you suggesting he is correct now or that he was correct then?

Here we go with the mythical "every economist". Mr. Every Economist does not exist. And even if he does it is only in the minds of those when it is convenient.

Yeah are ignoring the time component of it all. First, the issue of private vs public spending only really matters when one crowds out the other. We are having a major shortage of investment now even at 0% interest rates. Hence, there is no crowding out at the present moment.

Now, of course, debt today has to be repaid tomorrow. But one dollar today is not worth the same as one dollar tomorrow. In a growing market, where interest rates are high, one dollar today means several dollars of debt tomorrow, so deficits hurt the economy by taking out several dollars out of circulation in the future.

But with 0% interest rates and a tanking economy, it is much preferable to spend it today, because the debt will you need to repay tomorrow is worth significantly less.

So as long as that spending generates SOME stimulus, you are talking about about repaying that debt with just a portion of the investment.

Please let me know where you get 0%, nominal or real.

For most consumers, they pay over 7% for a 48 month car loan, over 11% for a 24 month personal credit card loan, and on average 13.36%.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...nts/bbcncr.pdf

Well, we are not talking about consumers. We are talking about the interest rates the government is paying.

As a matter of monetary policy, the federal funds rate is between 0-0.25%
FRB: Monetary Policy, Open Market Operations

As a matter of borrowing from the private sector, yields for short term treasury bills are closing in on 0 fast

http://www.investmenttools.com/image...monthshort.gif

The Federal Funds rate is the overnight rate banks pay. The purpose is so banks maintain liquidity in order to meet the demands of customers given fractional reserves.

What is real, outside of government bailouts for banks, in this current environment, is kinda what Buffet did when he invested $5 billion in Goldman Sachs. He is getting a 10% dividend, plus any upside in the stock price after $115. His investment puts him ahead of common shareholders. If Goldman could have gotten 0%, they certainly would not have done the Buffet deal.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Here is what the government is paying:

http://online.wsj.com/media/48TSYELDN.gif

True it is low and less than last year, but above 0%. People are seeking the safety of investing in the US. It is ironic that the world has so much confidence in the fundamental strength of the US economy and our ability to return principle accepting almost no risk premium - but our President has almost no confidence in the fundamental strength of the economy feeling only his actions can avoid a disaster of the scope we have never seen before....give me a break Mr. President.

Just like Buffet stepped in with Goldman, others would have stepped in with other financial institutions if the deals made sense.

I think you are getting things backwards a bit. First, just to clarify, I never said interest rates were zero, but close enough to it, which is the case for all bills with short to medium term maturity.

In any case, it is not the rate the govt is charging others, but that it is paying on its bills, or the interest it is paying when it borrows money. It has little to do with the deals the financial institutions are making, other than to say that the scenario for private investment is so bad that people, not only around the world but within the US itself, prefer to make almost nothing lending to the government than receiving an uncertain percentage from private investments.

It's a fuckin' miracle. No worries it looks like this giant spendulus plan worked and the recession is ending this year. I'm just glad Obama was able to guide us through this deep recession and bring us out so soon!!! We are so lucky to have him at the helm.

Interesting, I was watching the cable news talk shows last night after Obama's speech. On one show they did a survey and about 80% had a positive outlook after his speech, I don't remember exactly how the question was phrased. And of course Obama has about a 65% approval rating. So, I am wondering why every time he speaks the stock market tanks? Why aren't all these optimistic people investing? Why aren't they buying homes? What should we believe, polls or how people actually invest their money?

cheerleading is not adequate economic policy.

CNN's poll numbers were similar to what you just posted, but they warned that they only polled people who watched the speech, which tended to skew Democrat.

CNN also had a Nobel winning economist on who said that using the day-to-day stock market trends as a metric for the economy is the wrong thing to do.

Because Bush and the conservative policies that he enforced have lead us into a financial crisis which is causing the stock market to pretty much tank every day.

The other day I had pizza for lunch and the next day the stock market tanked. Clearly I shouldn't eat pizza anymore...

Oh, I disagree. I think "cheerleading" is one of the most powerful tools available to a national leader. I think it again goes to the fundamental view held by Obama, who thinks government is the answer. The reality is that millions of hard working people and growing businesses are the answer, and sometimes we need encouragement. But as Biden said in response to a question regarding what is in the stimulus for small business, paraphrased - if your business needs a bridge for your customers to get to you, we will build a bridge. O.k., personally I don't need a bridge, but I could put more money to work if I got a tax cut.

Both. People are more optimistic. "The economy will get better, at which point I will have money to invest."

Just because they're not investing doesn't mean they're not optimistic. . . They simply don't have the money to invest.

I am pretty much looking at the trend since the market started to price in Obama's victory.

In June 2008, when Obama secured the nomination the Dow was at about 12,600, today it is at about 7,200. That is a lot of hope down the drain, don't you agree?

---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

When do you stop blaming Bush. During his last two years he was a lame duck. And, I seemed to recall Bush got blamed for the recession when he first took office, and was not given any credit for the recovery after 9/11. So what gives? Do we just argue points based on what we want to believe or on actual information in some form of consistency?

---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 PM ----------

It is not just people not investing new money. They are taking money out of the market. The savings rate is up and people are paying down debt. All these indicate pessimism.

{added} Oh, and here is another good one. They just doubled the federal deficit, and now Obama is going to cut it in half by the end of his first term. What does that mean folks? If this was not so serious, I would be laughing out loud. It has to be a joke the way the pundits are so amazed by Obama's plan.

No, it's realism. For three decades now people have followed the republican borrow-and-spend mantra. The republicans bankrupted the government doing it. And people bankrupted themselves. Now they're figuring out that buying everything on credit isn't such a hot idea and maybe instead of buying the new shiny, it's time to pay off some old debt.




Do you understand the difference between the deficit and the debt? The deficit is not cumulative, the debt is. Yes, he's having to spend a lot of money now, because the republicans screwed everything up so badly. But that doesn't mean he can't cut government spending in the future.

Ace, if you actually believed in cheerleading, you wouldn't have been so quick to publicly pooh pooh the stimulus plan. I was going to invest millions until I heard that the stimulus plan wasn't going to work...

ace, your biased observation of what the market has done since anything related to Obama is a far shot from correlation and even farther from causation. Right now your argument holds no weight.

The government is not bankrupt. They just passed the largest spending bill in history.

Yes, I understand the difference. But then again, I don't because of the way liberals communicate. For example you talk about deficits under Republicans as a negative and deficits under Democrats as a positive.

Here is another example. Removing the troops from Iran. O.k. I get the fact you can not predict an exact date, like the 16 month timeframe Obama promised, but then he mocked McCain for saying we would have troops in Iran for an indefinite period of time. Guess what, Obama is going to leave 50,000 troops in Iran for an indefinite period of time.

Gee, I am so confused.

---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------

I have money in the stock market and I want the market to go up. Me making money trumps politics. Being honest, I could be a happy billionaire in a communist country, not support communism in principle - but support those who help me protect my wealth. If Obama made the market go up 50%, rather than down almost 50% since June 2008, I would be spending much less time on his case.

To recover from the mess the republicans put us in. . .



Bullshit. Total, utter, and complete bullshit. Who has said deficits are good? Obama certainly hasn't. He's said he knows deficits are bad, but if we want to get out of the hole that we inherited, by which he means "dug by the greedy lunkheads who preceeded him," we have to do it.

Clearly: we don't have troops in Iran.

Not that THAT'S the problem with what you posted, but it IS evidence for confusion over there.

I pretty much don't care about flaws in my logic when I am down almost 50% since June 2008. I am just pissed off for believing that liberals would have the strength of their convictions and would invest based on all that hope they had during their convention and all the while Obama was running against McCain. It is true I am a sucker.

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

O.k., o.k., it all the fault ob Republicans, now what...


Again, I am confused. If deficits are bad, why do we need them? Some here said deficit spending got us out of the depression and that when FDR slowed deficit spending it caused the recession of 1937. Besides questionable facts, it seems the justification for deficits being bad and good is all over the place.

---------- Post added at 09:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 PM ----------

My mistake.

That would be the problem.

Because the idiots that you support insist on transferring all of the wealth from your customers to people who don't want to buy what you offer.


I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here.


Ever had to borrow money in an emergency? Carrying debt isn't good either, but are you telling me that if your wife were dying and you had to borrow money to get her treatment, that you wouldn't? And btw, I explained that despite having a firm conviction that you aren't confused at all, but are desperately trying to advance the neo-con agenda despite the fact that it's been proven completely and utterly damaging and destructive to the interestes of this country.

O.k. given the errors made by Bush and Republicans, Bush is not President and Republicans have virtually no power in Congress - Change was coming, we knew that since June, change is here, change got the TARP passed - meeting change's conditions, change got the largest spending bill in history passed, change is holding bad Wall St. bankers accountable, change is..., why am I loosing money every day?

I answered the question already. I am a sucker. I actually believed in change. I think the people who said they believed in change, lied and buried their money in their back yards.


I think the only good reason to borrow money is to use the borrowed money to buy things that either appreciate in value or will make you more money in the future. Borrowing money, for my children to pay back is always wrong in my view. Borrowing money for short-term fun or to feel good is always wrong in my opinion. My views on the use of debt is simple and clear, at least to me.

Well, first of all you seem to contradict yourself, then. The stimulus package cant be all bad, and fiscal stimulus cant be all bad, if you are for tax cuts.

That aside, no amount of cheerleading will make people resume payments on underwater mortgages, no amount of cheerleading is going to clear up toxic securities from banks' asset sheets.

Only someone extremely partisan would say that the problem with the current economic scenario is that the president isnt optimistic enough.

---------- Post added at 01:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 PM ----------

No, not at all. But here is the thing: a deficit, in and of itself is not bad, as long as you eventually run a surplus.

So, as even the basic morality tails tell us, save during the good times and spend during the bad.

Clinton had a surplus during his economic expansion, Bush had a deficit during his. That is the difference.

True, but if the point is lost given the trivial amount of tax cuts relative to the size of the spending bill I do contradict myself.

Historically, "cheerleading", I often like to use Churchill as an example, has been the reason people have done extraordinary things. Again, we will simply disagree on this point.

No. Like I wrote previously when it comes to my money I am not partisan at all. If a Democrat helps me make a shit load of money, I could careless about his politics.

I presented my theory on why I lost so much money since June, 2008. I clearly made an error in judgment and I think I know what that error was. If others think the decline in the market since June is Bush's fault or the fault of Republicans, all I can do is ask - when is change going to be responsible for anything? Let me know when it is safe to dig up my money and put it in a bank, real estate, or Wall St.

See? I just knew this would happen. I even said it in this forum. I knew that Americans would barely let Obama get his chair warm before they expected him to have everything that took over 30 years to break completely fixed, and have life be wonderful again.

Thanks for proving me right, though I kinda wish you hadn't.

Can I believe we are having this conversation? uh, no...well, yes.
can i get an updated statement on what the bush presidency has cost me in actual dollars and cents since (roughly) 2004 and also, while you're at it a ballpark estimate of what it will cost me over the next 10 years...
and I'll have a biggie fry and a coke with that, if you please.

The thing about the economy is that it moves a lot slower than people think. It is very rare for anything to have an immediate impact on actual economic conditions that we face daily.

How much of all of this was Bush's "fault?" Hard to quantify, and honestly I think of economics as being more than the morality play of the mainstream media where any problems can only come about from the moral shortcoming of a particular person, and not the sort of systemic hiccups that any economic system goes through from time to time.

The thing, though, is that while markets have cycles, sometimes governments can worsen conditions significantly or vice versa.

In this case, the causes for this mess are numerous, but we do know of three things that made it much, much worse than it needed to be.


- Alan Greenspan set a very expansionary monetary policy a few years ago. 1% fed rates made money extremely cheap. In an upward cycle, this is precisely the sort of thing that fuels speculative bubbles. This is neither party's fault as fed policy is independent from the executive branch.

- Regulation lagged behind significantly. Methods for determining margin calls and net capital requirements were poorly understood, if they were understood at all. Here is a good read: Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street
This, of course, is both party's fault.


- Finally, there is the whole deficit issue. And this IS Bush's fault. As someone who is concerned about deficit and the debt, I just don't see how you can ignore this. Bush's deficits were large and significant, and had to be financed from abroad. Running a deficit during an economic expansion is like throwing fuel to the fire. It accelerates inflation, increases costs, increases imports, etc. Which is why basic economic knowledge says that, just like the tale of the bees, you should save while times are good to spend when they arent. Bush did the opposite, sped up the bubble and therefore is significantly responsible for the mess.


As far as when we should start blaming Obama, well, anything before at least one year in office is too little to evaluate economic policy. Decisions regarding investment, stocks, hiring and firing take a few months to change direction.

If by mid 2010 we are worse than what most projections expect, then we can start talking about it. Before that, its just the toxic waste that he inherited. Just as Bush wasnt responsible for the dotcom bust (although he was responsible for mishandling the recovery).

True, but given the nature of the crisis as described by Obama, I don't really care that he, as he puts it so frequently, "inherited" all these problems. He wanted the job. He was a sitting Senator and had inside information regarding our situation. People bragged about how detailed his campaign plan were. People bragged about how he was putting his transition team together so much sooner than McCain and that he would be ready to go. He has also complete control over Congress. He has a 65% approval rating. He has the support of the world. So, again I ask - when is he going to take responsibility for anything? Are we talking 6 months, a year, two, three, four...?

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------

I made money under Bush. I made money under Clinton. In my view there is clearly a different tone coming from Washington regarding business and investment. I think various markets are reflecting that, including the recent acceleration in job losses.

Also, is it me or do they simply not know what they say has consequences. For example private planes serve a purpose, can be cost effective and not always about luxury. So to dump on business people who use that tool, is to dump on the industry that makes that tool. Perhaps they want all the people in that industry unemployed.

He's taking responsibility. Just because he can't fix the mess overnight doesn't mean he's sloughing off responsibility, or that he wasn't ready to go. What you seem to have trouble wrapping your mind around is that real life is not a TV drama where everything is solved in one hour-minus-commercial-breaks. Yes, he did inherit a major problem. A problem three decades in the making. Surely you are not suggesting that he take the blame for what was started in the 1980's? This mess is going to take years to solve. Years. He's the president, not a wizard. He can't just wave his wand and make everything lovely. I know that's going to be a hard adjustment because magic and (in their own words) voodoo economics seem to be the republican solution for anything involving money, but unlike Reagan and the Bushes (and Clinton) we live in the real world and can't just cast a spell to fix things.

I am the first to admit that President's generally get too much blame or too much credit for the economy under normal circumstances. however, these are not normal circumstances. I believe our current crisis, is one of confidence more than anything else. I think the level of confidence is very closely related to leadership. There is no Republican leadership and Democrats as Emanuel says is taking advantage of a "crisis" manufactured or real I suppose.



---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

I played football when I was in school. There was one game when my team was down in the fourth quarter and our QB got hurt and the backup was put in. In the huddle the first thing he says was, it is not my fault we are loosing...I slapped him across the helmet and told him to call the f-ing play. In the heat of the game, leaders don't pass blame. Leaders, lead.

I find it funny how you are now so worried about deficit spending. Where were you during the Regan/Bush years?

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4...torsurplus.gif

Ahh yes. Football economics.

The difference is that your QB did not have to convince millions of people that the way the old QB was running things wasn't working. The QB said something, and the rest of the team did it. Obama has to convince people, and constantly remind people, that the Republican way of doing things got us in this mess, because the Republicans are still running around claiming their way of doing things is the best way.

I suppose if your current reaction is any indication, after he called the first play, and your team failed to score on that next play, you got on him about his poor leadership abilities and then waxed nostalgic about the previous quarterback in every huddle for the rest of the game.

Ace,
No one is going to resume payment on an underwater mortgage simply because the president was upbeat. No one is going to reverse foreclosure because the president is a good cheerleader. Mortgage backed securities are not suddenly become worth something again because the administration sounds optimistic. No investor is going to pick up worthless derivatives because a chief of staff is smiling.

That is not how it works.

I have never supported the excessive spending in Washington. I support smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal discipline. My support of Bush primarily involved the war on terror and the war in Iraq. If you read my posts, you will find many where I disagreed with him on fiscal policy and government spending. I have been consistent, others have not been including those who had a problem with Bush deficits but now think deficits will prevent the worst crisis in the history of man or whatever they are saying about it today.

---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

Every lesson to be learned about life, can be learned on the football field.:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

Nope. We focused on the moment, the job at hand not the past. We all made mistakes, we where all there and we knew what got us into our situation.

---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

If you believe that hanging on will lead to a better future you will. If the President says it is the right thing to do in troubled times. If the President says his economic policies will reward those willing to do what is right in these difficult times you would. Granted perhaps, not 100% of the people, but what if half of those in default did? think it would make a difference?



And if the Pres. says you and your business is worthless and that you are bordering on being criminal scum, that just might have an impact on your future behavior or the value others see in you and your business.

I can't believe you don't think words can make a difference if they come from the most powerful office on the planet. I simply can not believe it, I won't accept it.

A good pep talk has its place. But no pep talk is going to make someone with 2 broken legs finish a marathon.

In any case, this discussion is going in circles. It is clear that you don't want to consider anything else.

I'm very pleased that President Obama overturned the ban on photography/video at the airforce base where the caskets from Iraq arrive. It's about time people see the cost of war.

No, we have been consistent. We do not support deficit spending when you're spending the money on crap we don't need to do, like Star Wars, Iran Contra, tax cuts to the wealthy, and invading foreign countries, twice, when they've never shown any aggression toward us. We do support deficit spending when it is absolutely necessary in order to keep us from slipping into the second Great Depression. Your presidents spent money we didn't have for shit we didn't need. Our president is spending money we don't have, true, but if he doesn't, none of us will have money for decades. Plus, our president is forced to spend that money because of the neglect and destruction left by your presidents.

Well, that's at least consistent with the actions of the presidents that you support. The Two Bushes failed to look at the past, namely, Vietnam, and started shit with Iraq. And now we're dealing with the same situation as Vietnam - an unwinnable war that we should never have started in the first place.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush 2 failed to look at the history of the robber baron era, and what that immense separation of upper and lower classes led to (the great depression), and busily got down to the business of creating a yawning gulf once again. And, once again, the economy tanked because the ultra rich can't stand it if they aren't getting ultra-richer.

Poor Bush, he set the conservative movement {a smaller more fiscally responsible government} back 20 years or more and no matter how much he spent and expanded existing government programs he couldn't buy the love of the liberals because of that giant (R). In the end everyone hated him but for different reasons, the conservatives for spending and expanding the government like there was no tomorrow and again the liberals because of that (R).

As far as Obama's performance so far, I truly hope he succeeds. This country desperately needs him to succeed. We simply can't wait another 4 years to give someone else a stab at it. So far much like Bush somethings are business as usual but there have a been a few positive developments so we shall see.

Really? You really think that the only reason over half of the country dislikes Bush was because he was a republican? If you remember back to the early part of his first term, Bush was not especially disliked by the democrats, and he had virtually unprecedented support after 9/11. But he squandered whatever affection he had on unnecessary wars, torture, and countless scandals. If he had governed the way he claimed in the first campaign, as a compassionate conservative doing no nation building, he wouldn't have ended up nearly as unpopular as he did. (R) or no (R).

I loved Bush's embrace of incompetent cronyism, and how even when people monumentally fucked up he would tell them they did a "heckuva job". It was only the (R) next to his name that kept me from publicly voicing my support.

You should really reread what I wrote.

He only had voice support of the Democrats because they knew it would be political suicide to not go after the hoodlums that took out the twin towers. Only after the Iraqi invasion and the changing tide of public opinion did the Democrats change their tune. The Democrats waited until a few days after the invasion to start denying support. Suddenly they was against it before they was for it or however that shit went down. Nice work as it enabled a community organizer to be elected President of the United States.


The Patriot Bill and liberal spending probably cost him more politically than anyone would want to admit. The Democrats taking control of both houses was a direct result of the Patriot Bill and their promise to repeal it, a promise they broke btw. The Republicans pushing NAFTA through and the Democrats idea of everyone in America, regardless of credit worthiness, should own a home has gotten us in this fine mess. I just hope our community organizer and his advisors are smart enough to get us out. There is a lot riding on our Presidents shoulders at the moment and we all better hope the decisions he makes are correct as there is little room for error.

I reread it. You seem to be accusing us of disliking Bush because he's a republican, when in fact we dislike him because he's an evil moron who likes to torture people.



Are you kidding me? Please tell me this is satire.


Yeah, because Afghanistan was hiding the son of a bitch who attacked us. We supported retaliation against the group that attacked us. Iraq wasn't hiding him. In fact, Saddam hated bin Laden and would have killed him if he could have found him.


Ahh, yes, you're parroting such intellectual giants as the Swiftboat idiots. If you're going to repeat other people's words without thinking about what they say, you should at least pick someone smart. Better yet, someone smart who isn't blatantly lying.


How horrid for us that someone who actually did something useful in his past is now the Commander in Chief. It was much, much better under the man who failed as governor of Texas, who failed as an oil man, who failed as the owner of a baseball team, who failed so badly in college that only his family name kept him there, who failed so badly in highschool that only his family name got him into college in the first place, who failed to stay sober, and who failed so much that his dad, the Saudis, and the bin Laden family had to bail him out on numerous occasions, and who failed even to show up for his national guard duty. . . oh, except for that one time in the dentist's chair. Yes, clearly George W. Bush's past history of abject failure and nothing but abject failure is quite a bit better than Obama's history of success.

I would make a snarky comment here about you only disliking Obama because of the giant D next to his name, but that would an overly extreme case of stating the obvious.



I actually largely agree with this, except that its scope is too narrow - - it was also a direct result of the war, and the desire of the country to end it. And yes, I do agree that the spineless bastards broke their promise and ignored their mandate by not stopping the war.


Credit where credit is due. Clinton happily signed it, the sonofabitch.


How is that a democratic idea? It's a wall street / investment banker / mortgage broker idea, cheerfully encouraged by Greenspan. Who is a self-admitted Republican.


You're right there. Obama has to be FDR 2.0 and he has very little time to do it in.

Oh, I guess he did not actually have two broken legs, my bad.

Excellent video to illustrate precisely what I was saying: it wasnt two broken legs, and it wasnt a marathon. Pep talks might help here and there, but not in such a deep crisis.

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------


Maybe it's because what you spend it on, as opposed to how much you spend. Nation building, creating a huge "security" apparatus, and using current medicare and social security surpluses to push regressive tax cuts through is not exactly my idea of spending liberals would get behind.

Of course, congressional dems are being too slow to revert some of these things.

But given the reaction to Obama's budget by many in the press, you get the idea that so many people are shocked that he is trying to do exactly what he campaigned on. The guy runs a campaign on public investment on healthcare, cap and trade, and reverting the tax cuts for those making more than 250k and when he puts those things in the budget, he gets attacked by most of the press corps.

I want to thank you. Because of your posts, I did a search on people doing exceptional things in adverse situations. I was feeling sorry for myself. Now I have put things back into perspective and I am now inspired. I may not do anything as great as some, but what I saw today has had an impact on me. Again, thanks, words/pep talks/cheerleading matters.:thumbsup:

Sorry, does not compute. The problem arose because Jimmy Carter created the CRA, Clinton expanded it, and built a house of cards upon real estate. He further lucked out by getting out of office as the dot com bubble burst, although to hear him tell it, everything was fine in his term.

Bush managed to stave off an economic meltdown in spite of 9/11 by cutting taxes. However, the combination of Democrats taking over Congress in 2006, and their totally mercenary defense of Fannie and Freddie, finally imploded our entire economy. Nice work Barney, Chuckie, Chris, Harry, and Nancy. Why would anyone not trust you to fix the problems you created?

Back to Obama's performance. Geithner, Killefer, Daschle, and now Kirk. Eric Holder is no slouch, either--how much money did Marc Rich's pardon cost again? Obama's appointments make Bush look like a genius!

Good thing our country has no economic problems. If that were not the case, we might think Obama was a fucking dunce for promising $900 million to the Palestinians. If the news media mentioned it, that is.

I am IMPRESSED with how rapidly a community organizer can ruin the lives of average Americans. But hey, as long as he delivers outrageous promises (triple spending, halve the deficit) in impressive sounding speeches, NBC, CBS, and ABC will continue to hide the truth, for whatever reason.

P.S. Someone might want to mention to our financial wizard president that it's "PRICE/Earnings," not "Profit/Earnings."

The whole CRA thing is a myth that has long been debunked. Half of subprime loans were made by entities that are in no way regulated by the CRA, and another 1/4 were made by subsidiaries that were only partially regulated by it.

So even if every single loan made by banks regulated by the CRA were only made because of the CRA (which is not true), the majority of troubled subprime mortgages still had nothing to do with it.

Obama's Middle-Class Task Force Has No Middle Class

When I saw this headline, I thought "well maybe there will be some big business types that will be there on the board helping. WRONG....they seem to be all politicians making money from the taxpayer they are bleeding dry. They are all supporters of bailing out banks while unemployment skyrockets and the rich get richer and middle class is losing everything.

But I truly love the "There will be transparency and I will veto all pork"

Then facing reports of all the pork in HIS stimulus bill, "That was Bush's regime, I'll start doing it next year."

This guy is a true politician who doesn't give a damn about the people that make this country great (and to help with your guessing, it ain't the ultra rich).

He's a power hungry jerk, who I truly believe will be worse than Bush by the end of his term.

The Dems have the chance to truly make this country great again securing their power or to destroy it and never regain power. Right now, it is looking more and more likely they are out to destroy than rebuild.

Thank God I will not be here when they do, but my son, my neice and nephew, their kids will be paying for this for generations. And Obama continues to make the rich richer.

So very sad, he could have been great, instead he may go down as the worst president ever.

I pray I am wrong.

Pan:

What was Bush's middle-class task force like?

Was his "Blueprint for the Middle Class" written by the middle class?

Why can't members of the upper class help the middle class?

You talk about bleeding taxpayers dry.

You talk about not giving a damn and being power hungry.

You talk about the country being destroyed.

But you don't talk about the program.

I think your talk is hyperbolic.

Prove me wrong.

Don't care he's no longer president and his policies were never geared for the middle class. I really hope we don't have to compare Obama to Bush because if we compare policies that probably means his aren't going to work.

I'd rather be focused on bettering the nation and learning from the past not comparing things to the past.

Again, don't care...see above answer

I was hoping they were, as my post stated, but they aren't it's filled with people who make their money being politicians and far removed from true heartland middle class.

Yes, we are. We bail out banks give billions to them then we give taxpayers $13 extra a week.

Who is going to pay for all this? We aren't doing shit to rebuild a true tax base. Without a deep and strong tax base you have no choice but to keep going after those who can pay.

And I believe so far that is what we are seeing from Obama. We saw that from Bush. Obama doesn't care about middle class people, if he did he would have lived up to his "I will veto all pork" "I will make government more transparent" I have a feeling if things get worse, he'll blame Bush more and be more hidden than Bush.

He's in over his head but I have a feeling loves the power.

Well, no strong tax base, bailing out the ultra rich with NO true idea where the money is going, times keep getting worse and no one knows what to do, but helping the banks and the ultra rich while the people starve isn't the right way to go.

what program, Obama doesn't even have any ideas that are going to work.

We are all entitled to our opinions. That's all I'm giving is my opinion and the way I see things.

If you see things different then by all means offer up your opinion.

Nice thing about an opinion is I don't have to prove you wrong and opinions can change.

If this middle class task force starts talking to hard working true middle class citizens and truly works to build some programs that work and help, then I'll commend Obama and state I was wrong about him.... until then, it ain't happening.

i keep not understanding how folk are thinking about the relation between making a statement that an initiative is going to happen and seeing effects from it. it's most strange, like there's an instant gratification thing that cuts across otherwise reasonable people's judgment.

the situation that neoliberalism generated--all the while providing more than enough ideological blah blah blah so that there was no need to look too hard at this situation as it was taking shape--is complicated. look at it this way: it took the united states 30 years of sustained reactionary stupidity to get itself into this mess, so it hardly makes sense to assume that somehow a new president is going to be able to wave a magic wand about and everything will be all better.

It's like nobody has ever heard of momentum.

When you claim to have a middle class task force and fill it with all politicians and talk to not 1 person from the true middle class.... it's a farce. That may change, we will see.

No, there is no quick fix for this, but bailing out the banks and knowing you will have to tax the middle class more to pay for it because you have no idea how to build a tax base (manufacturing, good paying jobs, less imports or higher tariffs is a good way to get this tax base).... you are in no way fixing the country long term because you are adding more to the bill that will be coming due with fewer tax payers.

It's not instant gratification to want to hear and SEE plans to truly change things for the better.

"I will veto all pork" man shows me nothing but he is the same as Bush, just a slightly different platform but no ideas to change the direction of this country.

---------- Post added at 02:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Momentum eventually slows down and starts swinging the other way unless pushed in the same direction.... Obama is keeping that negative momentum moving farther into negativity. He isn't trying to slow it down, he's speeding it up.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

12 pct. are behind on mortgage or in foreclosure

For this we continue to bail out banks with our tax money. And Obama keeps wanting to shell money out to them.

Why not shell the money out to the taxpayers or give tax holidays so that maybe people can catch up on a payment.

But we love to blame the people in these situations and not the ass wipes in Washington that keep giving the banks money while they foreclose, raise rates and fees and give big bonuses and parties.

Yeah, change is just another word for more of the same but under a different banner.

That's arguable.

What isn't arguable is the notion that the fact that things continue to get worse is proof that what Obama is doing is failing. It just isn't true.

Obama's plan might work, it might not. It is too soon to tell.

well, pan, there is a vague space of agreement--i would prefer that obama advanced a more comprehensive plan that provided adequate information to back it up and a sequence of clear objectives linked to particular kinds of outcomes. but for that, he'd have to break entirely with the neoliberal past, and it's not clear that either the administration or--especially---the idiots in the mass media who, like it or not, still--somehow--are in a position to structure legitimate opinion (this in a sociological sense)--are ready to do that. what i've seen so far is mostly geared around trying to get things back to a sense of normal--but normal is already 30 years fucked up, so i don't see the point in doing that in principle. in pragmatic terms, which for better or worse we have to think in terms of, i don't see a real alternative IF you accept the idea that a central driver behind all that's been happening is panic. and panic appears to follow from folk having to think too much about the possibility that this, "the best of all possible worlds" is a Problem. so the administration has to play softball with folk. and it's doing it. i just don't think that's a good idea.

manufacturing for example--there's no way back from the just-in-time type system for the strata of corporate entities that have adopted it short of massive state funding for the transition. that ain't happening--so the alternative is seeding new manufacturing--which requires a plan. protective tariffs aren't going to do anything because in the present system "made in america" is functionally meaningless, except in the context of medium-to-small scale firms. there are alternatives--but they require a plan.

one thing the administration is starting to move toward that's maybe interesting is eliminating tax havens. an effect of this would be to slow down something of capital movements. the intent that's been stated is tax revenues, but the idea goes beyond that in principle. again, same problem. no plan really.

The problem with this statement is, how long do we wait? How many more bailouts do the hard working, overburdened, middle class have to pay for? How many more major companies are going to take billions in loans and then say, "oops we need to go bankrupt, thanks for the taxpayer money."?

Granted he inherited a mess but so far he just seems to want to make it worse. And blame Bush. True leaders do not blame they find ways to right things and work to make things better, I just don't see that from him..... yet.

So you think, like, 6 weeks is enough time to turn around decades of economic momentum?

I understand you don't like paying the salaries of rich failures. Nobody does. What does that have to do with the likelihood that Obama's stimulus plan will have a net positive impact on the economy?

I could see this being the case if Obama was using Bush as an excuse to not do anything. I don't see the problem in pointing out that the last guy might have played a role, or that the people who subscribe to the same failed economic philosophies as the last guy haven't realized that those economic philosophies have failed.

Despite however you want to classify "true leaders" (I'm continually impressed by the passion you commit to things which are completely arbitrary, and I mean that moderately as a compliment) true leaders lead. Effective leaders get shit done. Right now Obama is getting shit done. Right now Obama is leading most of the nation-- the rest of the nation seems to be being led by either Ron Paul or Rush Limbaugh (or Ramtha). Pick your poison, I guess.

What plan $13/week???? A pork loaded bill that shows no true vision but to make some companies richer?


"I promise to veto pork if it comes across my desk."

"Ooo well that was Bush's agenda, I'll do it next year."

"I Promise to change the way we do business make it more open to the people to see."

"Read this bill in 48 hours, have no debate and don't release it to the public until after the vote."

"I'm going to raise taxes on tobacco until they are on the black market and/or people quit, thus nullifying that tax increase revenue and losing money because the revenue we do get from tobacco dried up, thus we'll have to tax coffee, soda, fast food anything we , the government deem unhealthy for you uneducated slobs trying to enjoy life."

"Don't smoke...... but we need you to to bail out the rich."

Talk about hypocrisy.

Really, what has he gotten done? Truly done to better this nation?

What is his plan? How many more billions do we have to give the rich and how much farther does the Dow need to collapse? How much farther is he going to go down a road that isn't working?

Great leaders surround themselves with great people, he hasn't.

Great leaders have true plans and ideas how to better the future. He doesn't.

Great leaders are open to debate and ridicule of the plans and ideas because they may see things they hadn't and make compromises (because great leaders know sometimes compromise works and is best for all) or they have great belief that what they are doing is the best plan and they can shoot down ridicule by proving it and being firm in belief. I don't see any of this from him or the Dem leadership in Congress. They try to scare people in their own party into silence, they want to keep going down a road that has been leading us to ruin and not change course.

Most of all great leaders don't lie, they inspire by stating the truths and as bad as the outlook may be they inspire hope and encourage all (even those who don't agree with them). He doesn't.

I am not led by Limbaugh, Ron Paul or anyone else, I actually think for myself. One very interesting thing I have found tho, is by not having a TV and not watching news, getting it from newspapers, the radio, internet and the like, I am not as liberal as I once was, I think more for myself and pay attention more. I am able to listen to friend's opinions more and have more respect for them, but am less persuaded by things (opinions) I know are wrong.

And to keep this mantra "we have been headed down this road for 30+ years", then let's look who was in power then... hmmm the Dems. (Personally, I believe it was more Reaganomics than anything else in government).

30+ years would also be when the Boomers started taking power also, but we won't go there right now.

These are very scary times and they are getting worse on a daily basis. He doesn't have the benefit of time to try things and see how they work, he better find ways that work immediately or we are just seeing the beginning of a very fast decline in life as we know it.

Pan, what is the proportion of pork to nonpork in this bill? Do you know? Have you read the bill? Or are you just regurgitating?

Even with the pork, did you know that the phrase "economic stimulus" actually means "spending money"? That's how you stimulate the economy. Pork or no.


Not sure what any of this has to do with anything. Maybe the first one has anything to do with Obama blaming Bush for his own inaction. Even then, I question your ability to accurately paraphrase.


It's been six weeks. Let's see: Appointing people to positions relevant to their knowledge and experience. An energy secretary who knows how energy is actually defined physically? OMG!!! He's drastically reducing troop levels in Iraq. He's got economic vision beyond "lower taxes" and "let them fail". I don't know that it makes sense to list more, because I don't think you're really all that interested in hearing about them.

You don't know his plan? Why are you so passionately complaining about it then? What do you expect him to do, go down to Wall Street and force people to buy stock? You're ridiculous.

I'm glad to see that to go along with your arbitrarily definition of what it means to be a great leader you've decide to arbitrarily interpret reality to mean whatever the hell you want.

Good for you.

or you could think this out, pan.
it's entirely possible that the way of life that was fashioned under the rickety, cheap umbrella of american empire dressed up as globalization is over. it is entirely possible that the consequences of free marketeer ideology are catching up with the people who were primarily affected by it here--regular working folk--when production mutated and labor became a variable cost and people persuaded themselves that the movement of capital creates wealth and the firms have no particular responsibility to anyone or anything but profit---there were consequences. the scary thing is that there are no easy or obvious answers to this--but the fact is that all this is a direct consequence of 30 years of neoliberal ideological domination in the states. and this is not a mantra--it is a fact, like it or not.

and so it no longer matters what folk think of leadership in the old mode.
it no longer matters what free marketeers think.

this is the start of a long, strange process of the type that does not play well on television and is not amenable to easy snap judgments. the problem this creates is that to address it you cannot rely on prefabricated talking head opinion. but you'll figure that out.

Bingo. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. We're not in Kansas anymore. Moe, Curly and Larry have jumped the ship.

Frame it as the consequences of the last 8 years, the last 8 weeks or the last 8 seconds, but those lazy, crazy, hazy days of summer are over. A better idea than sitting around arguing about the Obama administration's excruciatingly protracted first 8 weeks in office is to go out and learn Chinese or Hindi.

Not a bad idea. It is not lost upon the thinking person that Obama's rush to enact "stimuli" is based not on the urgency of the situation, but on the need to pass these travesties before Congress and the public can read what is being proposed.

Huge problem #1: We will never, ever, get rid of "universal health care," no matter how shitty it is (and it will be) once it's put in place. The damage will be enacted upon all future generations.

Huge problem #2: Obama wants to structure income taxes to have 50% of the people pay no taxes. In one piece of legislation, unless he is stopped, he will create a permanent voting majority of people who have no interest in controlling the expansion of government, nor in limiting tax increases.

Massive numbers of tax refugees will leave this country--educated immigrants already are. This, together with offshoring made more and more attractive by the proposed tax environment, is having a very predictable effect. And people on this forum wonder why they can't find jobs.


Obama may or may not be an evil man, but his ideas are evil. If you voted for him, don't complain when you have no job.

Please, show me where this has been said or expressed. Any evidence of it will suffice.



Educated immigrants are already leaving this country because the Bush administration has made things seriously harder for legal immigrants. I know, I am one. The idea that educated immigrants are leaving the US because of tax issues is ludicrous.