Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

In recognition of the two year anniversary of Obama signing the Plain Writing Act of 2010, I propose a TFP regulation that between now and election day, all critiques of Obama's performance meet the standards of the Act.

The term `plain writing’ means writing that the intended audience can readily understand and use because that writing is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain writing.

Plain Language Guidelines

Thank you in advance for your compliance.

 

Government is complicit in this trend. Government artificially manipulates interest rates creating arbitrage opportunity. For example a look at basic banking activity. There is very little capital required but the returns on invested capital are enormous. Therefore everyone wants to be a bank - GE, GM, Sears, Ebay, Walmart, etc, etc. Think about it - collect savings deposits, pay 0%-3%. Then loan the money out at up to 20% or more. Then if it is a "cyber" bank, almost no invested capital is needed. Because of the national debt, government wants low interest rates. Government sets the rules for banking activity. It is not an open and free market.
--- merged: Oct 24, 2012 at 3:50 PM ---

Loved math, hated english classes. I went to a Catholic grade school and we had to write cursive, eventually they gave up and I figured if they can't really read it, they can't really say I spelled it wrong. No cover in the digital age. I guess I should proof read - then I think - I am not getting paid for this.
--- merged: Oct 24, 2012 at 3:53 PM ---

I don't follow you here. Oil spills, cancer, etc., are costs to society.
--- merged: Oct 24, 2012 at 3:58 PM ---

Again there is a difference between small business and big business. For example banks are bigger now than they were when some banks were too big to fail. The rules favor big banks at the cost of small regional banks. Banks trading on major exchanges reflect that. companies like GE not only benefit from their banking activity, but benefit from flawed tax policy - they make big profits but pay no US taxes??? Goldman Sachs - need I say more?
--- merged: Oct 24, 2012 at 4:01 PM ---

All one has to do is get out and talk to Americans, things are not good. Biden is correct, the middle class has been pounded over the past four years.

 

So you dismiss the fact that nearly all economic indicators are pointing to a growing economy.

The most recent pounding of the middle class started in 2000, when the median family income was the highest in history and shrunk throughout the decade.

 

Imagine a state where you can live comfortably, own a home, raise a family and not need a 6 figure income. Yes, North Carolina is one such place. North Carolina - where the last 18 out of 20 governors have been Democrats.
--- merged: Oct 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM ---

Spare me the lesson, Ace. The point here is the fact that this investment trend is unrelated to job creation. You don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't think Romney does either. I simply want someone to explain to me how measures such as repealing the estate tax and lowering or keeping the capital gains tax at a preferential rate, is going to help create jobs?

Convince me because all I see is the attitude of "make a buck at any cost" which is a purely individual and self-indulgent activity. All I see is a growing wealth disparity. I see no increase in job creation investment despite a low 15% tax on capital gains.

 

There are different types of indicators, some forward looking and some backward looking.

Please stop trying to tell me what I may or may not dismiss, just ask.

Has the "pounding" accelerated or decelerated as a result of President Obama's economic policies? After 9/11, Bush got tax cuts passed and basically had a singular focus on the "war on terror" - if your argument is that President Obama who said he had a focus on jobs was just as bad or worse than President Bush, why vote to reelect President Obama?
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 2:10 PM ---

I guess it is a question of timeframe. I agree in the short-run these kinds of costs can boost measured GDP. In the long-term these kinds of const negatively affect GDP. I agree GDP measure is imperfect. Given imperfect measures, I look for the measure to be done in a consistent manner. If GDP measure consistently under reports a variable, that inconsistency can be accounted for and the GDP measure can still be useful.

It is a question of budgets. Americans can manage high gas prices, the problem is when the price swings plus or minus 50% in a short period of time. A family on a tight budget, can be materially impacted if they go from spending $200/month on gas to $400/month. Or a truck driver who makes a profit when diesel is at $3.50 but can not make a profit when diesel is $4.50. Some can not pass on these price increases as fast as they occur. We simply want relative price stability.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM ---

I agree not all Democrats are bad, some are very good people with very good ideas.

A person can take real money and invest it in creating a business that employs real people.

Or,

a person can take that same real money and invest it in a commodity or derivative of that commodity (like gold or a gold ETF) that employs no people.

The tax consequence impacts the decision. Romney understands this because he has lived it, President Obama does not, his perspective is theoretical. If you read some people who post here, they think what I present above is simply b.s. - implying that tax policy has no consequence on business decisions or the flow of capital. They illustrate a basic lack of simple economics.

Greed. It is the simple attitude in the market. I want to make my bucks, is my primary concern. I assume you and everyone else in the market is motivated the same way. That is how the market works. It is foolish to think someone else is going to make bucks for you at their expense! How does that type of thinking come about??? If a person is a union employee, why do they think management is going to take care of them if it is not first in management's interest??? I don't get it. Of course management is going to say - we care about our employees - our employees are our number one asset - etc. - etc. Who believes that crap? It is like when a dude is picking up a lady at a bar and says - you are the best looking woman I have ever seen! Really???

 

...snip...

My sentiments, exactly

 

I agree that Romney understands the consequences of taxation, but unfortunately he's been unclear on where his priority lies. Is he more concerned with seeing taxes lowered on commodity and derivative investments that don't spur job growth or lowering taxes on investments that do?

Does he need to lower taxes on investments that don't spur job creation in order to spur job creation?

I believe wholeheartedly that Romney understands that consequences of lower tax rates on both wealth creation and job creation but from what I've heard, he cares more about one than the other.

This is the problem with those of your generation, Ace. You're selfish and jaded. Capitalists of the past came to realize that such thinking was foolish. Wealth for the few in the short term, at the expense of wealth in the long term for the many, would ensure wealth for the few in the short term. They would question how your type of thinking comes about. In a capitalist society, long term, sustainable wealth requires consumers. Where do you and yours intend to get them from if you deprive consumers of the wages necessary to consume?

You are very short-sighted but obviously don't care. You want to make your bucks. Lord save us.

 

Cut Everything — The Couth Hillbilly

 

I can be as optimistic as anyone but I think the quote below sums up where we are and we can just as easily fall into another recession as we might see continued slow growth. We are in a precarious state.

The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® for the U.S. Increases | The Conference Board

Inefficient spending or efficient spending can contribute to growth in the short-run. Sustained long-term growth is dependent on efficient spending. Efficient spending is a vague concept, theoretically 100% efficiency can not be attained. One can say that all spending is inefficient, if one wanted to be difficult for no real reason, basically ignoring common sense. But it is clear that if an economy is producing X given Y inputs, if Y is less then X will be less. So if there is a sudden increase of cancer deaths in a population, subset of Y, even if there is a short-term increase in output to treat cancer, over time Y will be less and so will X.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2012 at 3:08 PM ---

There are nominal marginal tax rates and effective marginal tax rates. The studies you cite do not factor in the difference. One reason liberals don't understand the arithmetic in Romney's tax plan is they do not distinguish the difference between nominal tax rates and effective tax rates. Romney will lower nominal tax rates for the rich while maintaining effective tax rates. The real argument is why will this make a difference? What does this do to income inequality? Etc.

 

You are right. Not sure that I'm a "liberal" but I don't understand. Please explain it to me - how will it work and how will it help?

If the effective tax rate is "maintained", that's bad - especially when for many it is zero.

 

In the tax code the top nominal marginal tax rate is 35%. However, using Romney as an example, he paid an effective rate of about 14%. In some cases a person in a 35% marginal tax rate bracket, can reduce their effective tax rate through deductions and loopholes. One loophole that people talk about is carried interest, or a Wall St. hedge-fund manager making millions in what is annual income being taxed at a capital gains rate or 15%. People like Warren Buffet can amass billions in additional wealth each year and pay no taxes, pay themselves a relatively small salary and end up with an effective tax rate lower than their secretaries who get all of their wealth through payroll - paying income tax, FICA, State, local, etc.

If Romney lowers the 35% rate to 28%, for the rich, that is a nominal rate tax cut. If he reduces deductions and loopholes so that people like Romney, hedge-fund mangers, Buffet actually pay a higher effective rate than let's say the 15% many really pay, government actually collects more money, or has money to support a middle class tax cut (poor and middle class do not have the same options as real rich people for lowering their effective tax rates).