Kosar_For_President Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 What was the time table this was going to turn around? LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 22, 2010 Report Share Posted January 22, 2010 Obamao's fix had to be in place in 5 days, to avoid the current situation. Wait.... OH, it never worked. Imagine that. But Shep's Obamao is smart, and such a smooth talker. Yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Let me get this straight....... A massive hyper inflated consumption based economic system fed by a unregulated securities industry in a global economy that has had fallout worldwide in a world based economic system in ONE year from the BRINK OF A DEPRESSION....... is going to turn around that fast. The number one thing they did was stabilize the PERCEPTION and MARKET CONFIDENCE by bailing out firms that have grown so large and taken so many risky positions that was leading to a catastrophic fallout..... Not to mention the other 9 million things this admin has going on..... no big deal just save the banking industry and consumer confidence so they dont make a massive run on all the banks along with pull out funds from their 401k and IRA along with other investments which out entire country hinges on........ sure that was easy along with trying to figure out the best control mechanisms so this wont happen again against a lobbyist paid and controlled congress...... no big deal to also take on Insurance and for profit health care companies to reform a horrible system.... hey confidence in U.S. leadership (which by the way can have a major impact on our economy) in the world has pretty much been restored.... 8 years of damage fixed no big deal..... the big three manufacturers and all of the sectors of supporting industries that also feed from the car industry collapsing....... no big deal to take on the unions who are a major part of the problem and the dem base along with impacting healthcare costs..... no big deal... Lots of these jobs are antiquating and are NEVER coming back.... this is a major course correction that has been coming for quite a long time. Like it or not we dont manufacture that much here so the low skill labor jobs that can employ a lot of these people are NOT COMING BACK..... they will stay in china/mexico, etc hell even the tech jobs are being outsourced to programmers in India,Australia,russia(24/7 development cycles at a lower cost than here) customer support call centers from "john" in bangladesh or somewhere in India....... This is the harsh reality of global economics........ If you want to point toward the administration go ahead..... it is crazy oversimplification and totally not in line with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Yes, of all the hacky partisan attacks, this one has to be the hackiest. He inherits the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, huge budget deficits that resulted mostly from Republican policy like tax cuts and Medicare expansion, and the decline in tax receipts from the slowdown. And then they attack him for not having it all turned around within a year. Good lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Yes, of all the hacky partisan attacks, this one has to be the hackiest. He inherits the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, huge budget deficits that resulted mostly from Republican policy like tax cuts and Medicare expansion, and the decline in tax receipts from the slowdown. And then they attack him for not having it all turned around within a year. Good lord. ] " the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression " I never get tired of that one. You forgot to add that he "pulled us back from the brink of economic collapse." WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Why do you keep on that like it's some weird statement. It's a statement of fact. This is the deepest and most prolonged economic downturn since the Great Depression, and it's not over yet. Somehow the Republicans have already blamed him for that, even though it's not even his. They've also blamed him for the deficit, even though the majority of that isn't his either. As for pulling us back from the brink of collapse, that didn't really happen on Obama's watch, but he continued those programs. And yes, they did pull us back from the brink of economic collapse. That much is clear. Would you like me to say "worst downturn since the 30s" or "biggest economic challenge since before WWII"? Would that make you happier? Or would the petty sniping make you happier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Why do you keep on that like it's some weird statement. It's a statement of fact. This is the deepest and most prolonged economic downturn since the Great Depression, and it's not over yet. By no means. Somehow the Republicans have already blamed him for that, even though it's not even his. Well it is actually dragging on well past the time most downturns take. But if you believe the spin that it's been going on for 9 years so far, well..... They've also blamed him for the deficit, even though the majority of that isn't his either. Hey the night's young. As for pulling us back from the brink of collapse, that didn't really happen on Obama's watch, but he continued those programs. And yes, they did pull us back from the brink of economic collapse. That much is clear. So Bush saved us from disaster and kept us safe??? Wow. Would you like me to say "worst downturn since the 30s" or "biggest economic challenge since before WWII"? Would that make you happier? Or would the petty sniping make you happier?[ Oh no. I love regurgitating Olbermann's talking points. Actually I just mention it as the cliches roll on. I'm sure you would too if it were somebody else. I mean, really, the president rarely misses an opportunity to blame the previous administration and brag about saving us. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Heck and Sev, I had not intended on ripping on the dude. I was asking a legit question and your liberal blinders jumped on the fact that I don't agree with you most of the time. It's so funny because both "liberal" and "conservative" people act just like their hero's in Congress. Leaving this an open ended question was done on purpose just to see how everyone reacts. It's almost comical and entertaining at the same time. I mean I could of almost typed Hecks, Cals and Sevs response to the tee. Now can anyone actually answer the question? Without giving excuses of why it's NOT happening. We understand it could take a while, all I am looking for is an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Forgive us if we suddenly don't think you're simply asking a legit question about economics. Maybe the proceeding 129 threads might give you some indication why we didn't take that at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 23, 2010 Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 While everyome believes that all of the Bank Bailouts and Stimulus Package was going to change things they were wrong, the only thing that happened was that we threw money to prop up Wall St. and not Main St. But here we are a year after Jimmy Carter II has taken office and we have more than 10% unemployment with millions of Americans out of work and millions more who are under employed. And Jimmy Carter II (Duh Obama)wants to bring in more illegal workers when we cant even hire who we have. (brings into mind all of those Cuban refugees) refugees But what we can reflect back to Mr Greenspans comments here, noting thatwe need more illegal workers to cheapen the cost of labor so they will be able to project a larger profit. What is always good for wall St. is not always so good for Main St. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2010 Forgive us if we suddenly don't think you're simply asking a legit question about economics. Maybe the proceeding 129 threads might give you some indication why we didn't take that at face value. Still a bitch I see, still can't answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 Heck and Sev, I had not intended on ripping on the dude. I was asking a legit question and your liberal blinders jumped on the fact that I don't agree with you most of the time. It's so funny because both "liberal" and "conservative" people act just like their hero's in Congress. Leaving this an open ended question was done on purpose just to see how everyone reacts. It's almost comical and entertaining at the same time. I mean I could of almost typed Hecks, Cals and Sevs response to the tee. Now can anyone actually answer the question? Without giving excuses of why it's NOT happening. We understand it could take a while, all I am looking for is an answer. Whose timetable or are you just asking for a timetable in general? Here is my timetable (its worthless by the way)....... 24 more months and it MAY shrink 1-2% (personally I think it will stay around 9%) One major factor for me is what sort of shape regulation will take (after this last supreme court ruling I dont think ANY meaningful financial regulation will happen.) A LOT of these jobs will never come back, retraining while great in theory is a lengthy process...... truthfully the ONLY thing in my book that will spur hiring now is ......... corporate tax cuts. This will start another bloated cycle but it is what it is. The correct long term thing would be to retool our consumption/credit/future profit based economic system into a more self sustaining manufactuing/selling innovation based products to the world market....... however that is not going to happen so the only real tool is greed. IF there was a major corporate tax cut you would see international money pouring into our markets and our businesses expanding again along with risk modeling (lending) that led to our growth.... Its not the best long term option but it would work. Its a fine line to ride.... with defecits skyrocketing because of less taxable revenues.... to go against the democrat norms....... it would work to create the cyclical financial behavior again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 The correct long term thing would be to retool our consumption/credit/future profit based economic system into a more self sustaining manufactuing/selling innovation based products to the world market....... Sev ************************** Well, forgive me, Sev, but I'm having trouble wrapping my farming mind around this one. Solid post before that, though. If our country were to actually DO the self-sustaining jobbie you mention, we wouldn't have a chance at being successful, unless our standard of living was so low as to match up with the rest of the world. That isn't a legit solution. Historically, when mankind has been free to innovate, invest in, procure, and make their own decisions on their own accrued wealth, great things happen. When gov intrudes, it takes away from the previous. It's all about incentive to explore individual(s) success in the individual(s) own work, without being hindered by unreasonable government intrusion and control. That was the economic plague on the Soviet people. All gov control led to hopelessness and despair, and rampant alchoholism. Live free, or die economically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 I am not sure on all of the details but there is something big happening in Zimbabwe. Just maybe some of our economists can take a look at what has turned this countries economy around. Turn Around Here But I agree that we need less Government involvement less taxes and regulations that have strapped businesses of all sizes here in the US. What we should be asking ourselves, are we any better than we were a year ago? 4 years ago? how about 20 years ago for those who are old enough to have lived as an adult during the Reagan years. It took Reagan almost 4 years to undo what Jimmy Carter and his democratic party had done, which had stifled the economy to what where we are at today. Obama is part of the problem along with his partners in crime Reid and Pelosi. Every time I see Pelosi chanting jobs jobs jobs montra it makes me want to puke, what she should be saying is layoffs layoffs layoffs because we just passed new laws that will make it even harder for you to perform business. As for answering your question, I am hesitant to say until the midterms are decided. I will wait also to see if HC passes in its current form. IMO: That could be the death nail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osusev Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 cal you are 100% correct that in a more self sustaining economic model our access to cheap chinese imports or taiwanese manufactured electronics, waste of toxic electronics etc would dramatically change the "quality of life" here. That will never happen..... however it would not hurt to buy more local produce, seasonal foods less access to imported fruits etc or to buy locally manufactured products or at least in north america benefitting U.S. based manufacturers (it would be a higher cost) we would have less "things" etc. Well thats not going to happen either, so while I may pine for more theoretical axioms its not reality. The dems need to understand this and really get on board with some free market growth tools. Like small to medium business tax cuts and low capital gains... etc hand in hand with using a GAO type oversight IF private industries dont regulate themselves. I dont think there is anything wrong with limiting sizes of insurance and banking companies while at the same time creating tax envirements designed to benefit medium size businesses in the same industry. Just Regulating and creating more bureacracy is garbage...... pass some laws containing size (antitrust/monopoly) and than create financial tax cut incentives for businesses who stay within more safe sized that operate efficiently. Obviously that is off the top of my head without much thought so I am sure there is all kinds of things wrong but they do actually have really smart people and lots of them who instead of reading stupid popularity polls they could get to work on actually doing something beneficial....... I hate lobbyist and I hate polls..... both should be banned. These damn politicians should be rated by a random citizens jury and if they dont score high enough they are out..... drives me crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 These damn politicians should be rated by a random citizens jury and if they dont score high enough they are out..... drives me crazy. Sev that is an excellent idea, seriously. Good stuff there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 24, 2010 Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 Thanks, Sev, you know more about this stuff, obviously, but I really go for the idea about buying more produce locally. It looks like we are at least going to have 700 tomato plants this year, not like the 900 last year. We experimented a lot with different varieties. About six of them were up to our standards. One, "tigerelli" was an extremely poor keeper, the day after it was picked, it turned into a juicy "water balloon"... we are also big into a few certain cherry tomatoes we discovered last year. Well, maybe on 700, depends on how carried away we get. The upside to our favorite farmer's market is, the big resellers, those couple of guys who have box trucks and drive down to Amish country and buy a couple tons of stuff at their wholesale produce auctions, (a lot of seconds), they would show up at farmer's markets and sell it as their own fresh-picked, personally grown produce. I know customers realized it and complained, because they told me while they were buying our produce. Gee, they weren't invited back this year. Problem solved, with NO GOV INTERVENTION. BTW, Steve, that farmer's market has moved for this year. It's a whole lot closer to I77, like just off it a bit, S. (you'll love our new improved Early Girl, etc, tomatoes this year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2010 Cal, so do you sell your produce? And if you do are you "required" to pay taxes on that stuff? Or is there a cap on what you have to sell to pay taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 There is a limit on the yearly sales. We don't begin to come close. Some farmer's market exemptions. Kinda like a garage sale. Informal transactions between individuals... Like, the coupons given to needy families that are used strictly to buy fresh produce at farmer's markets. Say, that reminds me, I want to submit the paperwork to enroll in that program. Last year, we accepted some coupons, but couldn't use em because we weren't in the program. I wasn't going to accept the coupons, just to give them the produce, but they insisted. I tried to give tomatoes to Steve, but the bum insisted on helping us earn money. GGG If he comes back this spring, I'll have him come over and check out our garden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The bailouts were a massive failure. Citibank should have been allowed to finally die, but the Government decided to bail them out for the 4th time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 As for your question, Kosar, I don't think anyone has the answer to that. This isn't like any of the other recessions we've been through. The big question that the policy makers and folks at the Fed have to grapple with now is how do you take all that stimulus money, and all the stimulative efforts from the Fed, and remove it all from the system without pulling it right back down again. It's helping prop us up now, and things are still bad. (Though they'd be worse without it.) What happens when you remove it? This has never been done before, and no one really knows how we're going to do it. It's the biggest policy issue that no one is talking about. Probably because it's kind of scary. It's like having a WR with an ACL injury. You can operate on him and give him crutches so he's on his way to recovery. But what if you have to send him back out on the field before he's fully healed? How do you make it so you lessen the risk that he blows his knee out again? That's sort of the problem we're faced with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 The bailouts were a massive failure. Citibank should have been allowed to finally die, but the Government decided to bail them out for the 4th time. And now making huge profits. Where is this money going. This is the problem with government intervention. Too much red tape. Although bailing them out was inevitable, who is overseeing who pays what back, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 It's like having a WR with an ACL injury. You can operate on him and give him crutches so he's on his way to recovery. But what if you have to send him back out on the field before he's fully healed? How do you make it so you lessen the risk that he blows his knee out again? With that, I would say the White House, Obama and Bush, is the Cleveland Clinic. Everyone is going to get staph, I am not going to be able to get back out on the field period. I'm trying not to be cynical about the whole thing, but..... I am laid off, I couldn't imagine how hard this would be if I had kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I just don't agree with the people - both in here and elsewhere - who think we should have let those banks fail. I think that's insane. If you think 10% unemployment is bad, there's no telling how high it would have been if the entire worldwide financial system had been allowed to collapse, but it'd be a lot more than 10%. If you think this recession has gone on too long, try a depression. Make no mistake - those were the choices. And no matter how hard it is to watch some of the people who created the problem walk away from it whole, it's still far, far better than the alternative. PS - I can't imagine how hard unemployment would be with kids either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosar_For_President Posted January 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 I just don't agree with the people - both in here and elsewhere - who think we should have let those banks fail. I think that's insane. If you think 10% unemployment is bad, there's no telling how high it would have been if the entire worldwide financial system had been allowed to collapse, but it'd be a lot more than 10%. If you think this recession has gone on too long, try a depression. Make no mistake - those were the choices. And no matter how hard it is to watch some of the people who created the problem walk away from it whole, it's still far, far better than the alternative. PS - I can't imagine how hard unemployment would be with kids either. I tend to agree letting those banks fail would not be smart IMO. But I wanted to know then and now when are these banks paying this back (and there seems to be zero urgency) where is this money going? Wells Fargo paid $25 billion back, Citigroup $20 bil, Bank of America $45 bil. Does this money go back to the people? Pay against the deficit? These companies are still hoarding cash and making huge profits. How in the hell does that happen? Meanwhile, home sales plunge to a 40 year low. Obama needs to grow some balls and start cashing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted January 25, 2010 Report Share Posted January 25, 2010 Yes, that money gets returned to the Treasury, with interest, and lowers the size of the deficit. As for home sales, that's got more to do with the economy and the extension of the tax credit for first time home buyers. Two months ago you had people scrambling to buy a house before it expired. Last month there was no hurry. It may be harder to get a mortgage right now, but that's probably the way it should be. I'm not quite sure what you mean by Obama growing a pair and cashing in. What would you like him to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted January 26, 2010 Report Share Posted January 26, 2010 I like Sev's ref to the bloated ecomony. When the cash is rolling in business (like citizens) tends to spend a lot on stuff not crucial to survival. Then when the belt gets tight they have to cut it all back and probably even overreact. I think of company X who hired trained and placed demo people etc for major retail chains. I always wondered why Best Buy would pay X 25$ per man hour rather than hire somebody at 8$. Question two. A Mexican Standard Fender Stratocaster costs 300$ and the American Standard is 700$ but the parts for the Mexican Standard are not built in Mexico. They're built elsewhere and shipped to Mexico for paint and assembly. So If Joe in America builds one per hour and gets paid, say, 25$ and hour and Pancho does the same for 5$ an hour where is that 400$ discrepancy? Sev? (serious question BTW) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.