Is Obama the Next Herbert Hoover? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 02-05-2010, 08:29 AM

Obama has been in office over a year and from my point of view the economy is worse now than it was a year ago and now I fear it is going to get progressively worse. It is about a year ago that I first pointed out my difficulties as a small business owner, in the credit market. Credit was frozen, new credit was unavailable, interest rates and fees were significantly increased in some cases more than doubled, that condition still exists today. The costs to do business, including employing people or hiring new people, are high with the risks of those costs going higher - nothing has been done. If action in these two had areas occurred, I think the economy would be better today than it is.

Now we have heard talk for the past few weeks about small business tax breaks for new hires. So guess what, no one is hiring now because they need to know what the plans are. The President and Congress need to stop talking and act.

Capital gains taxes are going up, taxes on people who can invest in growth are going up, taxes on banks are going up, regulations on making money are going to increase, the national debt continues to rise, the value of the dollar declines, we have no energy plan, no health care plan, no social security fix, and we are still in two wars. Is Obama, the next Herbert Hoover?

Quote:

However, more recent historical analysis has demonstrated that President Hoover adopted pro-labor policies after the 1929 stock market crash that "accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression."[39] Hoover, in fact, took an active role in trying to protect the economy through wage controls and job sharing. Hoover generally shared the economic theory that the stock market crash was a consequence of inequality of wealth and income. In November 1929, he met with industrialists and union leaders and negotiated a deal whereby industry agreed not to reduce wages and labor unions agreed not to strike. This later led to Hoover signing into law the Davis-Bacon Act, which required local governments to pay union wages on public works projects and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prevented courts from issuing injunctions against union strikes. Keeping wages artificially high limited employment opportunities such that by the end of 1931, the unemployment rate was 16% and growing.[40]

In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program. To combat rampant unemployment, the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs, the program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico. The program continued through 1937.

Congress approved the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. The legislation, which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items, was signed into law by Hoover in June 1930. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[41]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations payments had stopped completely.[42][43]

Hoover in 1931 urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[44] The NCC was an example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged NCC member banks to provide loans to smaller banks to prevent them from collapsing. The banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was replaced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

By 1932, the Great Depression had spread across the globe. In the U.S., unemployment had reached 24.9%,[45] a drought persisted in the agricultural heartland, businesses and families defaulted on record numbers of loans, and more than 5,000 banks had failed.[46] Tens-of-thousands of Americans who found themselves homeless and began congregating in the numerous Hoovervilles (also known as shanty towns or tent cities) that had begun to appear across the country. The name 'Hooverville' was coined by their residents as a sign of their disappointment and frustration with the perceived lack of assistance from the federal government. In response, Hoover and the Congress approved the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, to spur new home construction, and reduce foreclosures. The plan seemed to work, as foreclosures dropped, but it was seen as too little, too late.

Prior to the start of the Great Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, proposed and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932. The Act increased taxes across the board, so that top earners were taxed at 63% on their net income. The 1932 Act also increased the tax on the net income of corporations from 12% to 13.75%.

The final attempt of the Hoover Administration to rescue the economy occurred in 1932 with the passage of the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which authorized funds for public works programs and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). The RFC's initial goal was to provide government-secured loans to financial institutions, railroads and farmers. The RFC had minimal impact at the time, but was adopted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and greatly expanded as part of his New Deal.

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derwood · 02-05-2010, 08:56 AM

Your forecasts for the economic future don't jive with most experts

Rekna · 02-05-2010, 09:02 AM

From my own personal experience I'd say the economy is better now than a year ago. So much so that I'm no longer hording every dollar I'm earning and I'm starting to buy things that are not necessary.

aceventura3 · 02-05-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Your forecasts for the economic future don't jive with most experts

They don't "jive" with my normal optimistic nature either. They don't "jive" with what I want or what is in my best interests either.

The problem with Hoover is that in-spite of his rhetoric, he actively tried to "fix" the economy and everything he did, failed or was too little too late. Is that what Obama is doing?

roachboy · 02-05-2010, 09:05 AM

i wonder if there is **any** exercise in projection that conservatives will not indulge. after 30 bloody years of neo-liberalism, which has its origins in hoover period republican Horror at the new deal, now there's a comparison between obama and herbert hoover?

surreal.

dippin · 02-05-2010, 09:08 AM

Why, exactly, would he be the next "Herbert Hoover?" Herbert Hoover has become what he has become primarily because he believed in a number of principles and economic theories that you actually seem to agree with. He was a firm believer in "Ricardian equivalence," or the notion that any fiscal stimulus now will simply become tax hikes in the future, and so a balanced budget was the sound strategy to fight a recession. It is hard to have one's cake and eat it too: one can't simultaneously complain about the size of the stimulus package and then compare Obama to the guy who has become what he has become because he didn't believe in stimulus spending.

Sure, to a degree I actually agree with the comparison, but that is mostly because I believe that Obama's stimulus spending should have been more significant, and that his regulations don't go far enough. But I'd be surprised if you thought the same.

aceventura3 · 02-05-2010, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

From my own personal experience I'd say the economy is better now than a year ago. So much so that I'm no longer hording every dollar I'm earning and I'm starting to buy things that are not necessary.

When do you think that will spread to other segments of the economy? Or, do you think it has already? Do you fear a "double dip" recession or are you confident we have turned the corner?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:08 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if there is **any** exercise in projection that conservatives will not indulge. after 30 bloody years of neo-liberalism, which has its origins in hoover period republican Horror at the new deal, now there's a comparison between obama and herbert hoover?

surreal.

I ask the question. To suggest there is nothing worthy of consideration between the two conditions, in my view is surreal.

Baraka_Guru · 02-05-2010, 09:15 AM

Most economists I've read about are cautiously optimistic about future trending. Most people don't see it because the current positive trends are either future-looking or coincidental factors that most people either overlook or don't see in their everyday lives.

I have yet to hear from an economist that is more than minimally concerned about a double-dip recession. Of course, many of the economists I read about are Canadian. But they do speak about the American economy as well.

aceventura3 · 02-05-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Why, exactly, would he be the next "Herbert Hoover?"

Perhaps he won't be, I don't know. And I certainly don't want a depression. My basic view is that our economy can not be micro-managed and that attempts to "fix" the economy can do more harm than good. Is Obama so smart that he won't make errors similar to those made in the past? So far the answer seems to be no.

Quote:

Herbert Hoover has become what he has become primarily because he believed in a number of principles and economic theories that you actually seem to agree with.

There is a difference between Hoover's words and his actions. His actions, I would not have supported.

Quote:

He was a firm believer in "Ricardian equivalence," or the notion that any fiscal stimulus now will simply become tax hikes in the future, and so a balanced budget was the sound strategy to fight a recession. It is hard to have one's cake and eat it too: one can't simultaneously complain about the size of the stimulus package and then compare Obama to the guy who has become what he has become because he didn't believe in stimulus spending.

Sure, to a degree I actually agree with the comparison, but that is mostly because I believe that Obama's stimulus spending should have been more significant, and that his regulations don't go far enough. But I'd be surprised if you thought the same.

Regulations need to add value. Banks are not doing what they need to do, because of the fight between them and the administration, it is counter-productive. If Obama mandated they loan money in accordance to normal standard prior to the financial crisis, that type of regulation may have worked. Stimulus targeted to the correct segments of the economy may have worked better than his initial plan. So, yes I can support regulation and stimulus.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Most economists I've read about are cautiously optimistic about future trending. Most people don't see it because the current positive trends are either future-looking or coincidental factors that most people either overlook or don't see in their everyday lives.

I have yet to hear from an economist that is more than minimally concerned about a double-dip recession. Of course, many of the economists I read about are Canadian. But they do speak about the American economy as well.

One of the key factors are the assumptions used by those economist. I think given certain conditions many would easily agree there could be a double dip. For example, many say we have not seen the worst of the commercial real-estate market decline. Depending on what happens, that could trigger another "panic" in the financial sector. Many agree that during the past few quarters GDP is artificially high due to inventory build up and government spending, these conditions will not hold true in the up coming quarters and real economic activity has to take up the slack. Absent a real up tick in economic activity, we could easily see a double dip.

dippin · 02-05-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps he won't be, I don't know. And I certainly don't want a depression. My basic view is that our economy can not be micro-managed and that attempts to "fix" the economy can do more harm than good. Is Obama so smart that he won't make errors similar to those made in the past? So far the answer seems to be no.

How "Hooverian" of you.

Now, how is Obama being so smart related to being the new Herbert Hoover?
Personally I think that the stimulus package was too small. That would certainly make him a bit like Hoover. I just have a hard time understanding the sense that you would find him to be like Hoover. Is it just the coincidence that he is also presiding during a recession? Or do you really think that Obama should be doing more of the things that are commonly associated with FDR, like a stronger devaluation of the currency, more spending, and more regulations?

aceventura3 · 02-05-2010, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

How "Hooverian" of you.

Now, how is Obama being so smart related to being the new Herbert Hoover?
Personally I think that the stimulus package was too small. That would certainly make him a bit like Hoover. I just have a hard time understanding the sense that you would find him to be like Hoover. Is it just the coincidence that he is also presiding during a recession? Or do you really think that Obama should be doing more of the things that are commonly associated with FDR, like a stronger devaluation of the currency, more spending, and more regulations?

The "hard time" you have with me has nothing to do with the question. How do you respond to the question, and why? Please, stop making every post I make something that it is not. I will always clearly explain my views and respond to questions.

My feeling is that Obama is trying to micro-manage the economy in a manner similar (although the specific issues are different), to Hoover. Hoover thought what he was doing would work, so does Obama. Hoover felt that government actions in the areas he felt were important would trigger economic activity or improve conditions, so does Obama. Hoover was President during poor economic conditions, so is Obama, Hoover made things worse, will Obama? That is the question in my mind, that is the question I seek input from others on. I am open to what others have to say on the issue, primarily because of the psychological impact perceptions have on the economy. I want to understand why the market responds the way it does, for that I need to understand how others see things.

Poppinjay · 02-05-2010, 10:07 AM

Probably not coincidentally, this is a Rush Limblob topic today.

roachboy · 02-05-2010, 10:21 AM

if you want to have a discussion based on a historical parallel things are typically helped along by having at least some idea of the historical material that's being played with---because in this case that's all we're seeing here---a rhetorical trial balloon coming from the fetid intellectual swamp of the right to see if against all reason and historical information obama can be superimposed on herbert hoover, who was a freemarketeer for the most part, presumably so that the republicans can then sweep in on some imaginary plane and frame exactly the same capitalist metaphysics that's work out o so fucking well over the past 30 years as if it is some kind of new deal. i dont know who they imagine they're talking to...maybe the same imaginary constituency they think voted for scott brown. the republicans now seem to think they're independent of their own record of being in power, independent of the bush period, independent of history, independent of reality so they can draw all other idenpendents their way.

so in that independent of interest kinda way we're being asked to consider in an independent of historical information so independent of logic scenario whether obama might be equated with herbert hoover.

i mean seriously ace. this isn't even your fault. you just gave it a try.
it's perfectly reasonable to see this move for what it is and not talk about the questions you pose. to do that would accept the frame you trot out. i think the frame is absurd.

dippin · 02-05-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

The "hard time" you have with me has nothing to do with the question. How do you respond to the question, and why? Please, stop making every post I make something that it is not. I will always clearly explain my views and respond to questions.

My feeling is that Obama is trying to micro-manage the economy in a manner similar (although the specific issues are different), to Hoover. Hoover thought what he was doing would work, so does Obama. Hoover felt that government actions in the areas he felt were important would trigger economic activity or improve conditions, so does Obama. Hoover was President during poor economic conditions, so is Obama, Hoover made things worse, will Obama? That is the question in my mind, that is the question I seek input from others on. I am open to what others have to say on the issue, primarily because of the psychological impact perceptions have on the economy. I want to understand why the market responds the way it does, for that I need to understand how others see things.

Except that Hoover didn't try to micro manage the economy. In fact, the whole "micro managing" of the economy (or at least the accusations that he was micro managing the economy) came during the FDR years.

Hoover's response was a mix of very limited regulation and a concern for deficits, coupled with a belief in the ricardian equivalence you have defended elsewhere.

In other words, there might even be a parallel to Obama, but for precisely the opposite of the reason that you seem to think they are alike. That is why I have a hard time understanding this thread, unless it is some new found attempt to rewrite history and blame Hoover for being too hands on, as opposed to not enough.

dc_dux · 02-05-2010, 10:30 AM

ace....why do you think Obama is to blame for zero net job growth between 2000-2009...or the lowest economic output in 70 years...or a decline in household net worth....or the lost decade for the economy?

The lost decade for the economy

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you want to have a discussion based on a historical parallel things are typically helped along by having at least some idea of the historical material that's being played with...

Historic parallels:

Cimarron29414 · 02-05-2010, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i wonder if there is **any** exercise in projection that conservatives will not indulge. after 30 bloody years of neo-liberalism, which has its origins in hoover period republican Horror at the new deal, now there's a comparison between obama and herbert hoover?

surreal.

wow, you waited a whole 4 posts to contribute your usual "you are so dumb, why would you even bring up such a stupid point of discussion, and therefore we shall not talk about this any further" post. as the discussions here fall into the shitter and the number of contributors dwindle, the moderators might wonder how to return to constructive political debate and encourage participation. since you are down to only two gluttons willing to endure your self-indulgent, mightier-than-thou, conserva-bashing - i certainly hope you have the introspection to recognize yourself as a major part of the problem.

ratbastid · 02-05-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Probably not coincidentally, this is a Rush Limblob topic today.

I hope you're not implying that ace is anything other than free-thinking independent.

dc_dux · 02-05-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

wow, you waited a whole 4 posts to contribute your usual "you are so dumb, why would you even bring up such a stupid point of discussion, and therefore we shall not talk about this any further" post. as the discussions here fall into the shitter and the number of contributors dwindle, the moderators might wonder how to return to constructive political debate and encourage participation. since you are down to only two gluttons willing to endure your self-indulgent, mightier-than-thou, conserva-bashing - i certainly hope you have the introspection to recognize yourself as a major part of the problem.

The point of discussion raised by ace was typical ace nonsense...from a guy who has repeatedly said he doesnt have a clue what Obams's policies are, believes Obama is a socialist and incompetent, and wants him to fail....and consistently ignores any facts that challenge his opinion.

Whats wrong with calling ace out on the bullshit partisan post that it is?

Cimarron29414 · 02-05-2010, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The point of discussion raised by ace was typical ace nonsense...from a guy who has repeatedly said he doesnt have a clue what Obams's policies are, believes Obama is a socialist and incompetent, and wants him to fail....and consistently ignores any facts that challenge his opinion.

Whats wrong with calling ace out on the bullshit partisan post that it is?

his posts said nothing about ace's position. he framed it as a "conservative" assertion. as ace is one of the few people who will actually still engage you guys, you might as well indulge his posits. likemindedness does not create an environment for debate.

dc_dux · 02-05-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

his posts said nothing about ace's position. he framed it as a "conservative" assertion. as ace is one of the few people who will actually still engage you guys, you might as well indulge his posits. likemindedness does not create an environment for debate.

Cool....I disagree. From my experience, ace and other conservatives here (not all) generally run away or dodge the question when their assertions are challenged with facts.

So maybe you can address a follow up question.

How is Obama responsible for the lost economic decade of 2000-09?

dippin · 02-05-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

wow, you waited a whole 4 posts to contribute your usual "you are so dumb, why would you even bring up such a stupid point of discussion, and therefore we shall not talk about this any further" post. as the discussions here fall into the shitter and the number of contributors dwindle, the moderators might wonder how to return to constructive political debate and encourage participation. since you are down to only two gluttons willing to endure your self-indulgent, mightier-than-thou, conserva-bashing - i certainly hope you have the introspection to recognize yourself as a major part of the problem.

As I've said many times before whenever this sort of victimization pops up, you get out what you put in. The idea that the secret to active and exciting contributions is to accept at face value assumptions that go against the historical record is nonsense.

To put this in a different way, if I started a thread saying that Obama is the new Reagan, because just like Reagan Obama wants to regulate a bunch of industries, I'd be called out on it, and rightfully so. First because Obama is not trying to pass massive regulations (though some people might argue that he is, which could be an interesting argument), and second because the Reagan presidency was known precisely by its DEregulation of many industries.

Obama can't at the same time be a far left socialist and a new Hoover. Obama can't be at the same time a reckless tax and spend democrat and a new Hoover.

Is there an argument to be made for Obama being like Hoover is certain respects? Sure. But that argument involves admitting things that go in the exact opposite direction of where Ace wants to take this. It involves saying things that Obama, like Hoover, is too concerned with deficits, or that Obama, like Hoover, should have passed a larger stimulus bill. Claiming that Obama is like Hoover because he was too meddlesome and wanted the state to play too active a role in the economy is a falsification of history. It would be like claiming that FDR was a supply sider who only cut taxes and let the markets fix themselves.

And I have no problem engaging conservative points of view. Gary Becker, Richard Posner, Mankiw, Lee Rockwell, and even "pop conservatives" like Megan McArdle generally have interesting things to say. I have a problem engaging the Rush Limbaugh point of view of the day. Whether or not that is a true "conservative" position can be debated, but it is undeniable that he is at least a self-proclaimed conservative.

Cimarron29414 · 02-05-2010, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Cool....I disagree. From my experience, ace and other conservatives here (not all) generally run away or dodge the question when their assertions are challenged with facts.

So maybe you can address a follow up question.

How is Obama responsible for the lost economic decade of 2000-09?

he is no more responsible for it than a us senator for two of those years and a president for one of those years can be. that amount can not possibly be measured.

Jinn · 02-05-2010, 11:57 AM

Really, ace should've worded his OP as "If we assume the economy is tanking, and we assume Obama is responsible for it, is Obama responsible for the economy tanking?"

And we could've all just agreed. The problem in this case, of course, is that the assumptions are invalid.

As dc noted above, you can't have it both ways. Obama can't be both an incompetent President who has done nothing in his whole term in office AND a socialist tyrant who is taking massive steps to destroy our economy.

dc_dux · 02-05-2010, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

he is no more responsible for it than a us senator for two of those years and a president for one of those years can be. that amount can not possibly be measured.

Obama was not in the Senate or the WH when the previous administration and Congress enacted the 01 and 03 tax cuts, heavily weighted to the top bracket, but promising jobs and economic growth to benefit the middle class.

At a cost of over $1 trillion, it provided neither jobs nor economic growth...and yet, ace wants more the same.

If you dont like the Obama approach with the initial stimulus program (not big enough, IMO) and the proposed new jobs initiative (might not have been necessary with a bigger initial stimulus), what is your solution to help recover from that "lost decade"?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Cimarron:

What dont you like about the proposal for a $5,000 tax credit for each new small business hire along with reimbursement of Social Security payroll taxes for businesses that increase wages or hours for existing workers (both capped to ensure that funds go to small businesses) ...and using $30 billion from money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks to borrow money from the Treasury at a reduced rate?

Or the banking/financial services legislation passed by the House last year to regulate the housing finance marketing, derivatives and related financial instruments, and to require large banks to self-fund (in advance) any future potential bail-outs.

I know what ace thinks...free markets, with little or no govt regulation, and supply side, trickle down economics will fix everything...and nothing else is acceptable or debatable... which, for me personally, makes discussion with him a waste of time.

roachboy · 02-05-2010, 01:43 PM

all i'm going to say is that i have far more conservative friends and colleagues than you might expect. what differentiates most of them from what happens here at times---sadly more than i would prefer---is that these folk are not impressed with populist conservative politics in the limbaugh mode. they dont recycle the arguments. they dont use the same techniques. they dont put you in the position of having to accept ridiculous premises in order to get to leading questions that aren't geared around discussion at all because the game is built into the premises.

and they don't act all offended or bewildered when problems of premise, of logic, of data, of coherence come up.
they're part of what a discussion is. they're part of the game.

but there are also other folk who don't seem to get that their positions come from anywhere in particular, that don't seem to understand that part of disagreement about politics is disagreement about data, about how things are defined and connected together, about consequences of arguments as they play out logically or as they play out in the world.
these are also the folk who seem to default into playing the victim when they get called out on things.
which is always strange because getting called out on things is also part of the game of argument.
and it's possible to respond to being called out on things without climbing on the victim train.
it's just the victim train is so cheap and easy and it shortcircuits things because from that point its not about argument its about you and your injury.
and that you can control.

but most of my conservative friends and colleagues are pretty interesting, smart informed people with whom it is possible to have interesting discussions about any number of things. there are some of those folk here as well. it's good to have a few drinks with the folk in meat-space and it'd be interesting to have a few with the folk i take as parallel here.

so don't get your panties all in a bunch cimmaron. it's all playtime.

and if you get called on arguments, just roll with it.
it's easy.
just answer the questions.
play the game.
sheesh.

Cimarron29414 · 02-05-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Obama was not in the Senate or the WH when the previous administration and Congress enacted the 01 and 03 tax cuts, heavily weighted to the top bracket, but promising jobs and economic growth to benefit the middle class.

At a cost of over $1 trillion, it provided neither jobs nor economic growth...and yet, ace wants more the same.

If you dont like the Obama approach with the initial stimulus program (not big enough, IMO) and the proposed new jobs initiative (might not have been necessary with a bigger initial stimulus), what is your solution to help recover from that "lost decade"?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Cimarron:

What dont you like about the proposal for a $5,000 tax credit for each new small business hire along with reimbursement of Social Security payroll taxes for businesses that increase wages or hours for existing workers (both capped to ensure that funds go to small businesses) ...and using $30 billion from money repaid to the TARP fund to help community banks offer small-business loans through incentives to those banks to borrow money from the Treasury at a reduced rate?

Or the banking/financial services legislation passed by the House last year to regulate the housing finance marketing, derivatives and related financial instruments, and to require large banks to self-fund (in advance) any future potential bail-outs.

I know what ace thinks...free markets, with little or no govt regulation, and supply side, trickle down economics will fix everything...and nothing else is acceptable or debatable... which, for me personally, makes discussion with him a waste of time.

I never said I wanted in on this conversation. I'm not blaming Obama for last decade.

james t kirk · 02-05-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if you want to have a discussion based on a historical parallel things are typically helped along by having at least some idea of the historical material that's being played with---because in this case that's all we're seeing here---a rhetorical trial balloon coming from the fetid intellectual swamp of the right to see if against all reason and historical information obama can be superimposed on herbert hoover, who was a freemarketeer for the most part, presumably so that the republicans can then sweep in on some imaginary plane and frame exactly the same capitalist metaphysics that's work out o so fucking well over the past 30 years as if it is some kind of new deal. i dont know who they imagine they're talking to...maybe the same imaginary constituency they think voted for scott brown. the republicans now seem to think they're independent of their own record of being in power, independent of the bush period, independent of history, independent of reality so they can draw all other idenpendents their way.

so in that independent of interest kinda way we're being asked to consider in an independent of historical information so independent of logic scenario whether obama might be equated with herbert hoover.

i mean seriously ace. this isn't even your fault. you just gave it a try.
it's perfectly reasonable to see this move for what it is and not talk about the questions you pose. to do that would accept the frame you trot out. i think the frame is absurd.

I was gonna say......

When this current recession landed in Obama's lap (a gift from George W Bush and Bill Clinton to a lesser degree) Obama looked to Hoover to see what NOT to do.

Hoover believed in the free market sorting itself out, so he did nothing, or very little. The result was 10 years of economic turmoil.

The arguement has always been that if Hoover had acted swiftly and decisively that the Great Depression (a term somewhat coined by Hoover who didn't want to use the term "panic" which had been used in the past to label recessions and instead called it "a slight depression in the economic growth curve") could have been at least tempered.

What Hoover did:

Higher taxes and tariffs
Shrunken money supply.
There was no direct relief for the unemployed. They could beg, steal, or starve, though Hoover claimed that they prospered selling apples.

The unemployment rate was approximately 33 percent, (not the 25 percent the revisionist Right now claims),

Almost all banks in 38 states had been closed.

In most of the other states and Washington, D.C., withdrawals were limited to 5 percent of deposits, and in Texas to $10 per day.

The New York Stock Exchange and the Chicago commodity exchange had been closed, indefinitely. The financial system had effectively collapsed.

What Roosevelt did:

Guaranteed bank deposits
Made the federal government a temporary non-voting preferred shareholder in thousands of suddenly undercapitalized banks (more than half the banks in the country),
Refinanced millions of residential and farm mortgages,
Put millions of people to work in relief programs,
Increased the money supply,
Repealed Prohibition of alcoholic beverages
Legislated reduced working hours and improved working conditions for the whole work force.

In the next two years, he set up the Securities and Exchange Commission, created the Social Security system, broadened the powers of the Federal Reserve to equal those of other nations’ central banks,

The key to evaluating Roosevelt’s performance at combating the Depression is the statistical treatment of many millions of unemployed engaged in his massive workfare programs, which were called “internal improvements” in Jackson's time, and are called “infrastructure” now. The government hired about 60 percent of the unemployed in public-works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York City’s Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the heroic aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown. They also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. They employed 50,000 schoolteachers, rebuilt the entire rural school system of the country, and employed 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors, and painters, including the young Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

Source:

Roosevelt & the Revisionists - Conrad Black - National Review Online

Now I'm not saying that Obama is FDR, not even close. If anything, I am disappointed in him so fare, however, he certainly is not mirroring anything that was done by Herbert Hoover.

Like the Depression of the 30's which was caused by the unregulated buying and selling of stock without the necessary capital to back it up this recession was caused by the unregulated buying and selling of real estate without the necessary capital to back it up.

Until such time as the government enacts legislation to change the banking rules, this can and will happen again. (I would say that perspective home owners should need to have at least 10% down on any real estate purchase.)

pan6467 · 02-05-2010, 02:40 PM

All I know and care about is what are the opportunities to be had for those losing jobs or starting out.

What I see are minimum wage or slightly higher jobs replacing decent good paying jobs. The employers know that jobs are now a commodity and are doing whatever they want (forcing people to work ot, not giving benefits, etc. there is no protection for employees anymore),

So the reality is that people who made $15, 20+ an hour are making much, much less. So unless, jobs start paying more (which then causes inflation) this country will continue a downward spiral.

Employers need to be held accountable, government needs to help those losing decent paying jobs to find wages similar.

I grew up believing if a man worked 40 hours and lived within his means, he should be able to save and live a normal standard of living life.... that is not the case in this country any longer. Too much greed from the top and politicians and too few in the middle left to fight.

james t kirk · 02-05-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All I know and care about is what are the opportunities to be had for those losing jobs or starting out.

What I see are minimum wage or slightly higher jobs replacing decent good paying jobs. The employers know that jobs are now a commodity and are doing whatever they want (forcing people to work ot, not giving benefits, etc. there is no protection for employees anymore),

So the reality is that people who made $15, 20+ an hour are making much, much less. So unless, jobs start paying more (which then causes inflation) this country will continue a downward spiral.

Employers need to be held accountable, government needs to help those losing decent paying jobs to find wages similar.

I grew up believing if a man worked 40 hours and lived within his means, he should be able to save and live a normal standard of living life.... that is not the case in this country any longer. Too much greed from the top and politicians and too few in the middle left to fight.

True.

It's a race to the bottom.

We have closed all the factories down and moved all those decent paying jobs to China in the name of cheap shit.

My parents bought a Maytag Washing Machine in 1977 for about $5 or 600 bucks. It was made in North America and it lasted 30 years.

I could walk into Home Depot tonight and buy a similar Maytag TONIGHT and it would cost about $600 bucks. It will be made in Indonesia though and it might last 5 years if I am lucky. People would have a fucking heart attack if they had to pay $1,500.00 for a fucking Washing Machine now (cause that would be what $600 from 1977 brought forward would cost).

All those poor bastards working at Maytag in Ohio have been laid off. Gone are the $20.00 an hour jobs. Replaced by minimum wage working at the Walmart.

Nobody wants to pay the freight anymore.

Tully Mars · 02-05-2010, 03:08 PM

Obama Hoover like? Really? Wow, just wow. That's like saying Reagan was actually commie bastard.

When in doubt ignore facts and attack, attack, attack! Something will surely stick to the wall at some point.

I wonder where and when there will be a breaking point? I'm not sure the tea baggers are all wrong. I mean other then blaming Obama for the debt and spending racked up by 8 yrs of GOP rule I think their onto something. We're spending it faster then we can print it it seems. How long can that go on? I keep having this reoccurring nightmare where i wake up and the yen and dollar are one to one. Of course that will make paying off China easier.

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

True.

It's a race to the bottom.

We have closed all the factories down and moved all those decent paying jobs to China in the name of cheap shit.

My parents bought a Maytag Washing Machine in 1977 for about $5 or 600 bucks. It was made in North America and it lasted 30 years.

I could walk into Home Depot tonight and buy a similar Maytag TONIGHT and it would cost about $600 bucks. It will be made in Indonesia though and it might last 5 years if I am lucky. People would have a fucking heart attack if they had to pay $1,500.00 for a fucking Washing Machine now (cause that would be what $600 from 1977 brought forward would cost).

All those poor bastards working at Maytag in Ohio have been laid off. Gone are the $20.00 an hour jobs. Replaced by minimum wage working at the Walmart.

Nobody wants to pay the freight anymore.

This is true too. The only thing the US seems to make any more that the rest of the world wants are movies and TV shows. It's almost as if you're not doing that at some point you end up a Wal-Mart stocking shelves with stuff made elsewhere. How can a country survive like that?

Derwood · 02-05-2010, 03:26 PM

Saying there is no protection for workers is bullshit. Sorry, Pan, it is. There are laws in every state to prevent what you're talking about. You can't force people to work OT, etc.

Now if the workers are unwilling to report violations, that's on them

rahl · 02-05-2010, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Saying there is no protection for workers is bullshit. Sorry, Pan, it is. There are laws in every state to prevent what you're talking about. You can't force people to work OT, etc.

Now if the workers are unwilling to report violations, that's on them

I know of quite a few company's that have mandatory OT, right here in Ohio.

Most of those companies are clients of mine, mostly manufacturing co's or distribution centers.

Derwood · 02-05-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

I know of quite a few company's that have mandatory OT, right here in Ohio.

Most of those companies are clients of mine, mostly manufacturing co's or distribution centers.

Not sure that's legal, even if you're compensating them for it.

rahl · 02-05-2010, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Not sure that's legal, even if you're compensating them for it.

I admit I don't know the legality of it, but it does happen.

pan6467 · 02-05-2010, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Saying there is no protection for workers is bullshit. Sorry, Pan, it is. There are laws in every state to prevent what you're talking about. You can't force people to work OT, etc.

Now if the workers are unwilling to report violations, that's on them

First, you have to find not just you but others willing to report it. That takes bravery and the belief you are 100% right and your job will be protected.

Secondly, you have to file with (in Ohio it's the EEOC) AND hope their workload let's them get to you before you are fired. And if you are fired, good luck finding a job while you await their investigation and then hearings.

Ohio being a "Right to work" state, employers can fire you for any reason whatsoever and if you were considered "part-time" (which most are), good luck getting unemployment.

Then IF the EEOC hears it, the company has the money to have lawyers while you sit there hoping the others don't back down.

I have seen it first hand and know of a few friends that tried, lost their jobs and nothing could be done.

Then if you are like me, where a client, who has a history of being extremely aggressive and has a street rep as being a very angry man who likes to hurt people, threatens you, touches you and you call the cops to have paperwork in case something does happen (which IS legal, once a client/patient threatens and/or touches you confidentiality goes out the window and that person can be held accountable for their actions). And upon calling the police you lose your job because the boss says "Mr. CEO has a good repoire with the police and bullshit calls like this embarrass him and this company, you're fired."

I called around, there were lawyers willing to hear the case but there was as one attorney said, "no money in the case and it comes down to he/said she said and it is very hard to convince a jury that you were within your rights."

So, no... in the state of Ohio there is very little protection and with budgets being cut it is getting worse. To say there is worker protection is bullshit and the employers know it.

---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

Not sure that's legal, even if you're compensating them for it.

No, mandatory overtime IS legal. In fact there is no law that limits the number of hours an employer can make you work.

Mandatory Overtime | Forced Overtime

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

True.

It's a race to the bottom.

We have closed all the factories down and moved all those decent paying jobs to China in the name of cheap shit.

My parents bought a Maytag Washing Machine in 1977 for about $5 or 600 bucks. It was made in North America and it lasted 30 years.

I could walk into Home Depot tonight and buy a similar Maytag TONIGHT and it would cost about $600 bucks. It will be made in Indonesia though and it might last 5 years if I am lucky. People would have a fucking heart attack if they had to pay $1,500.00 for a fucking Washing Machine now (cause that would be what $600 from 1977 brought forward would cost).

All those poor bastards working at Maytag in Ohio have been laid off. Gone are the $20.00 an hour jobs. Replaced by minimum wage working at the Walmart.

Nobody wants to pay the freight anymore.

It's not no one wants to pay the freight anymore....it's no one can AFFORD to pay anymore.

Derwood · 02-05-2010, 07:00 PM

I haven't lived in Ohio long enough to know the labor laws. I know the PA laws better, as my dad has been in HR there for 25 years.

roachboy · 02-06-2010, 07:03 AM

the manufacturing sector's been entirey reorganized. everyone notices but sometimes it seems like nobody knows, like saying it's violating some rule or worse like farting in church. kanban just in time supply chains lean production flexibility all those words meant production becoming fragmented then mobile then a matter of subcontracting in contexts where labor costs had become variable and so the "logic" of capitalism in its oldest form, straight exploitation of people who sell their labor power for a wage, particularly in contexts where working people cannot organize themselves into unions in order to protect their own interests....this is what neoliberalism has brought back in a shiny new form.

i can imagine policy/regulation actions that could break up the globalized system of labor exploitation, of deterritorialized production managed via supply chain interfaces---but i cant quite see who would intiate such a thing given that access to cheap goods has been presented to us as an end in itself and as desirable in part because price is severed from an idea of production.

so maybe opening up commercial lending and aggressively supporting new business? and extending the new-deal style public works projects to make more jobs available.

thing is that the employment problems are results of structural transformations that the entire center-right american political establishment has cheerleaded along. it's just come to a head under obama. i do not envy the administration having to figure out how to deal with the consequences of what amounts to 30 years of herbert hoover-style economic ideology.

pan6467 · 02-06-2010, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the manufacturing sector's been entirey reorganized. everyone notices but sometimes it seems like nobody knows, like saying it's violating some rule or worse like farting in church. kanban just in time supply chains lean production flexibility all those words meant production becoming fragmented then mobile then a matter of subcontracting in contexts where labor costs had become variable and so the "logic" of capitalism in its oldest form, straight exploitation of people who sell their labor power for a wage, particularly in contexts where working people cannot organize themselves into unions in order to protect their own interests....this is what neoliberalism has brought back in a shiny new form.

They haven't brought unions back yet. AND 30+ years of trashing unions may make it hard. Until the government allows people to vote for unions and employers avtually stay and don't just up and move... we'll see. But, I would definitely at this point say, neo-liberalism hasn't even come close to protecting the workers.

Quote:

i can imagine policy/regulation actions that could break up the globalized system of labor exploitation, of deterritorialized production managed via supply chain interfaces---but i cant quite see who would intiate such a thing given that access to cheap goods has been presented to us as an end in itself and as desirable in part because price is severed from an idea of production.

I've been saying this for 20 years. I am a strong believer that to "level" the playing field somewhat, any business doing business within the US (including ALL IMPORTS), should abide by US labor and safety laws. I believe if Nike wants to pay people overseas to make their shoes, then they should have to pay them minimum wage, have the same safety standards AND should be paying into a retirement fund similar to SS or better for those workers.

Quote:

so maybe opening up commercial lending and aggressively supporting new business? and extending the new-deal style public works projects to make more jobs available.

Commercial lending to small businesses is a start as is rebuilding the infrastructure. But, we need to find ways to cut down the top heaviness in companies. Stop allowing leveraged buyouts and mergers that cost billions in loans and the company will never see that kind of revenue.

Quote:

thing is that the employment problems are results of structural transformations that the entire center-right american political establishment has cheerleaded along. it's just come to a head under obama. i do not envy the administration having to figure out how to deal with the consequences of what amounts to 30 years of herbert hoover-style economic ideology.

That's not true, this has finally hit everyone, but this recession has been going on in one sense or another for a very long time.

Factories have been closing down, moving out and the job market paid less for the past 30+ years.

Companies have been given tax abatement and credits while laying off thousands, moving overseas and paying their upper management outrageous salaries to kill jobs. This was shown in MANY 80's movies. They warned us, they showed us what was coming... I don't believe the main stream people wanted it, but the CEO's and special interest groups were able to buy the politicians and so policy kept moving in a VERY BAD DIRECTION. Clinton may have been able to change things but once the GOP got Congress and went after him for EVERYTHING he did and kept his hands tied while feeding us bullshit scandals (whitewater, Lewinsky, etc) that went nowhere but kept us from seeing how the GOP was continuing bad policy.

Bush, I think may have tried to change things but he was a puppet for Cheney and Wall Street.

Obama, I think wants the best for America, in his mind... BUT he has not changed ANYTHING In DC, he tried to push an extremely costly and the wrong healthcare plan down our throats and he continues to pass blame and be pessimistic, instead of being a true leader. Plus, as Bush was a puppet for the radical right and the ultra rich in many ways... Obama is a puppet for the extreme radical left and going too far in any direction is bad and will only make matters worse.

If we are to truly heal and regain our national prestige and greatness, we need leaders on BOTH sides willing to work for that and put into policy the BEST plans for us, not some party platform that was decided by the extremists controlling the party.

james t kirk · 02-06-2010, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

It's not no one wants to pay the freight anymore....it's no one can AFFORD to pay anymore.

That's a chicken / egg scenario.

Walmart thrives in Blue Collar towns.

Baraka_Guru · 02-06-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I've been saying this for 20 years. I am a strong believer that to "level" the playing field somewhat, any business doing business within the US (including ALL IMPORTS), should abide by US labor and safety laws. I believe if Nike wants to pay people overseas to make their shoes, then they should have to pay them minimum wage, have the same safety standards AND should be paying into a retirement fund similar to SS or better for those workers.

I can't help but think of how disruptive this idea is. You're basically looking at placing a cost-intensive premium on a lot of goods. Unless I'm reading this wrong, are you suggesting that a factory operating in Asia should pay their workers an American minimum wage in addition to giving them a retirement fund? You know what that would do? Kill a large portion of American imports, which would lead to inflation. You think it's bad now? Just unroll this plan and watch China, Taiwan, etc., and all the American companies that use those places for manufacturing decide to seek out other markets. Foreign companies would say "forget it" entirely or would say "fine," making the average consumer product skyrocket. Companies such as Nike (you know, pretty much any multinational company) would likely boost their prices as a result as well. The CPI would leap off the charts, and American purchasing power would plummet.

You would essentially have to do this on an international level, such as through the WTO or something. But good luck with that. Either way? The cost of living would put even more stress on the lower classes. It would level the global playing field perhaps (i.e. if it were done internationally, maybe through a "global minimum wage and health & safety standard), but at the cost of the average American, not for their benefit. It would benefit the Third World mostly. It would be like making a sacrifice in your quality of life for the benefit of others, while ignoring the impact on economies of scale.

Quote:

Obama, I think wants the best for America, in his mind... BUT he has not changed ANYTHING In DC, he tried to push an extremely costly and the wrong healthcare plan down our throats and he continues to pass blame and be pessimistic, instead of being a true leader. Plus, as Bush was a puppet for the radical right and the ultra rich in many ways... Obama is a puppet for the extreme radical left and going too far in any direction is bad and will only make matters worse.

I grow weary of this. Obama is as much a puppet for the "extreme radical left" as G. W. Bush was for the devil.

If there is an "extreme radical left" in America, they are on the fringe and they have next to no political power. Or maybe I need to keep translating some kind of "Americanspeak." "Extreme radical left" in Americanspeak means "centre-left," right? To much of the rest of the world, it means something else entirely.

Pushing a "health care plan" in the form of rules regarding the purchasing of health insurance is a far cry from universal health care as some people know it. If there is a problem with it, it's that it is too compromising to those on the right.

EDIT: Oh, and I should probably note that your above idea about making it a requirement to have U.S. labour laws, health & safety, minimum wages, and social security for anyone who exports to the U.S. is by far more "extreme radical left" thinking than anything Obama has ever come up with.

02-05-2010, 08:56 AM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Your forecasts for the economic future don't jive with most experts __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

02-05-2010, 09:05 AM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i wonder if there is any exercise in projection that conservatives will not indulge. after 30 bloody years of neo-liberalism, which has its origins in hoover period republican Horror at the new deal, now there's a comparison between obama and herbert hoover? surreal. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2010, 09:15 AM	#8 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Most economists I've read about are cautiously optimistic about future trending. Most people don't see it because the current positive trends are either future-looking or coincidental factors that most people either overlook or don't see in their everyday lives. I have yet to hear from an economist that is more than minimally concerned about a double-dip recession. Of course, many of the economists I read about are Canadian. But they do speak about the American economy as well. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-05-2010, 10:07 AM	#12 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	Probably not coincidentally, this is a Rush Limblob topic today. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

02-05-2010, 10:21 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	if you want to have a discussion based on a historical parallel things are typically helped along by having at least some idea of the historical material that's being played with---because in this case that's all we're seeing here---a rhetorical trial balloon coming from the fetid intellectual swamp of the right to see if against all reason and historical information obama can be superimposed on herbert hoover, who was a freemarketeer for the most part, presumably so that the republicans can then sweep in on some imaginary plane and frame exactly the same capitalist metaphysics that's work out o so fucking well over the past 30 years as if it is some kind of new deal. i dont know who they imagine they're talking to...maybe the same imaginary constituency they think voted for scott brown. the republicans now seem to think they're independent of their own record of being in power, independent of the bush period, independent of history, independent of reality so they can draw all other idenpendents their way. so in that independent of interest kinda way we're being asked to consider in an independent of historical information so independent of logic scenario whether obama might be equated with herbert hoover. i mean seriously ace. this isn't even your fault. you just gave it a try. it's perfectly reasonable to see this move for what it is and not talk about the questions you pose. to do that would accept the frame you trot out. i think the frame is absurd. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2010, 09:02 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	From my own personal experience I'd say the economy is better now than a year ago. So much so that I'm no longer hording every dollar I'm earning and I'm starting to buy things that are not necessary.

02-05-2010, 09:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	Why, exactly, would he be the next "Herbert Hoover?" Herbert Hoover has become what he has become primarily because he believed in a number of principles and economic theories that you actually seem to agree with. He was a firm believer in "Ricardian equivalence," or the notion that any fiscal stimulus now will simply become tax hikes in the future, and so a balanced budget was the sound strategy to fight a recession. It is hard to have one's cake and eat it too: one can't simultaneously complain about the size of the stimulus package and then compare Obama to the guy who has become what he has become because he didn't believe in stimulus spending. Sure, to a degree I actually agree with the comparison, but that is mostly because I believe that Obama's stimulus spending should have been more significant, and that his regulations don't go far enough. But I'd be surprised if you thought the same.

02-05-2010, 11:57 AM	#23 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Really, ace should've worded his OP as "If we assume the economy is tanking, and we assume Obama is responsible for it, is Obama responsible for the economy tanking?" And we could've all just agreed. The problem in this case, of course, is that the assumptions are invalid. As dc noted above, you can't have it both ways. Obama can't be both an incompetent President who has done nothing in his whole term in office AND a socialist tyrant who is taking massive steps to destroy our economy. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

02-05-2010, 01:43 PM	#25 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	all i'm going to say is that i have far more conservative friends and colleagues than you might expect. what differentiates most of them from what happens here at times---sadly more than i would prefer---is that these folk are not impressed with populist conservative politics in the limbaugh mode. they dont recycle the arguments. they dont use the same techniques. they dont put you in the position of having to accept ridiculous premises in order to get to leading questions that aren't geared around discussion at all because the game is built into the premises. and they don't act all offended or bewildered when problems of premise, of logic, of data, of coherence come up. they're part of what a discussion is. they're part of the game. but there are also other folk who don't seem to get that their positions come from anywhere in particular, that don't seem to understand that part of disagreement about politics is disagreement about data, about how things are defined and connected together, about consequences of arguments as they play out logically or as they play out in the world. these are also the folk who seem to default into playing the victim when they get called out on things. which is always strange because getting called out on things is also part of the game of argument. and it's possible to respond to being called out on things without climbing on the victim train. it's just the victim train is so cheap and easy and it shortcircuits things because from that point its not about argument its about you and your injury. and that you can control. but most of my conservative friends and colleagues are pretty interesting, smart informed people with whom it is possible to have interesting discussions about any number of things. there are some of those folk here as well. it's good to have a few drinks with the folk in meat-space and it'd be interesting to have a few with the folk i take as parallel here. so don't get your panties all in a bunch cimmaron. it's all playtime. and if you get called on arguments, just roll with it. it's easy. just answer the questions. play the game. sheesh. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2010, 02:40 PM	#28 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	All I know and care about is what are the opportunities to be had for those losing jobs or starting out. What I see are minimum wage or slightly higher jobs replacing decent good paying jobs. The employers know that jobs are now a commodity and are doing whatever they want (forcing people to work ot, not giving benefits, etc. there is no protection for employees anymore), So the reality is that people who made $15, 20+ an hour are making much, much less. So unless, jobs start paying more (which then causes inflation) this country will continue a downward spiral. Employers need to be held accountable, government needs to help those losing decent paying jobs to find wages similar. I grew up believing if a man worked 40 hours and lived within his means, he should be able to save and live a normal standard of living life.... that is not the case in this country any longer. Too much greed from the top and politicians and too few in the middle left to fight. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-05-2010, 03:26 PM	#31 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Saying there is no protection for workers is bullshit. Sorry, Pan, it is. There are laws in every state to prevent what you're talking about. You can't force people to work OT, etc. Now if the workers are unwilling to report violations, that's on them __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

02-05-2010, 07:00 PM	#36 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I haven't lived in Ohio long enough to know the labor laws. I know the PA laws better, as my dad has been in HR there for 25 years. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

02-06-2010, 07:03 AM	#37 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the manufacturing sector's been entirey reorganized. everyone notices but sometimes it seems like nobody knows, like saying it's violating some rule or worse like farting in church. kanban just in time supply chains lean production flexibility all those words meant production becoming fragmented then mobile then a matter of subcontracting in contexts where labor costs had become variable and so the "logic" of capitalism in its oldest form, straight exploitation of people who sell their labor power for a wage, particularly in contexts where working people cannot organize themselves into unions in order to protect their own interests....this is what neoliberalism has brought back in a shiny new form. i can imagine policy/regulation actions that could break up the globalized system of labor exploitation, of deterritorialized production managed via supply chain interfaces---but i cant quite see who would intiate such a thing given that access to cheap goods has been presented to us as an end in itself and as desirable in part because price is severed from an idea of production. so maybe opening up commercial lending and aggressively supporting new business? and extending the new-deal style public works projects to make more jobs available. thing is that the employment problems are results of structural transformations that the entire center-right american political establishment has cheerleaded along. it's just come to a head under obama. i do not envy the administration having to figure out how to deal with the consequences of what amounts to 30 years of herbert hoover-style economic ideology. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite