Obama on Fiscal Responsibility

[ZenLunatic]

Are you taking Econ 101 right now?

 

Im in Econ 102 now.

[austrya]

I think the best way to boost the economy right now is to pre-order this book.

[Tweedling]

I don't know, but you're definitely being over-annoying by consistently posting negative stuff that offers no insight or information.

I know and I'm the only one doing that.........

[Moss]

I think the best way to boost the economy right now is to pre-order this book.

 

Did you write that?

[lost highway]

If we were to just let business 'sort itself out' every major bank would close. We all know what happened last time the government sat around and let banks close.

 

The idea missing from the last back and forth about the stimulus, I think is this:

Capital, or money is not fixed. If you try to make a fulcrum model where haves are going up and have-nots are going down a proportionate amount, you have an inaccurate picture. The same can go for the relationship between wealth and goods and services.

 

It is wise to be cautious of creating a bubble (toxic assets, adjustable rate mortgages etc) but a government stimulus package does not do that (if it works right). Think of it this way: Joe blow just got a job doing a 'shovel-ready' project. He's giving us a good of sorts, and definitely a service. He is being paid by borrowed money. But he can use that money to buy other goods and services, thereby creating fractions of jobs and demand for manufacturing with every dollar he spends. When this kind of stimulus gains momentum the benefits, and profit become greater than the initial cost.

 

It is like a mega-fragmented, meta-model for the 'you have to spend money to make money' idea.

 

Meanwhile, I am totally sold on the Swedish model for buying banks and restructuring them.

[futureage1]

A lot of articles popping up about bank nationalization today. This is the first one I have seen written by an actual economist. Greenspan also advocated bank nationalization recently. So maybe when we see a op ed in the WSJ by him it will happen. In the meantime here is this article.

 

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/129700/b...ationalization/

[austrya]

Did you write that?

 

Nope, I just belong to the group on FB.

[Good Old Neon]

GM: 'Substantial doubt' about survival

 

Automaker's annual report says it hopes to get $7.7 billion from the government to remain viable.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/05/news/compa...M_10K/index.htm

 

I think now might be the time to stop throwing good money after bad, and just let them go.

[EL the Famous]

the entire daily show last night was a fantastic ripping of CNBC and like-minded financial analysts. i laughed and cried.

[ZenLunatic]

It is wise to be cautious of creating a bubble (toxic assets, adjustable rate mortgages etc) but a government stimulus package does not do that (if it works right). Think of it this way: Joe blow just got a job doing a 'shovel-ready' project. He's giving us a good of sorts, and definitely a service. He is being paid by borrowed money. But he can use that money to buy other goods and services, thereby creating fractions of jobs and demand for manufacturing with every dollar he spends. When this kind of stimulus gains momentum the benefits, and profit become greater than the initial cost.

 

It is like a mega-fragmented, meta-model for the 'you have to spend money to make money' idea.

 

 

All depends where the money is spent. Just spending money doesnt equal good economy. American companies need to make the money. It does us no good when we borrow the money and create jobs so people can have money to spend on foreign products or services. It does us no good when American companies are so inefficient that they lose tons of billions. We spend money, but that money is going to finance executives in companies and government that run horrible plans that lose billions and trillions. How does that help?

[lost highway]

All depends where the money is spent. Just spending money doesnt equal good economy. American companies need to make the money. It does us no good when we borrow the money and create jobs so people can have money to spend on foreign products or services. It does us no good when American companies are so inefficient that they lose tons of billions. We spend money, but that money is going to finance executives in companies and government that run horrible plans that lose billions and trillions. How does that help?

 

I agree with your comment concerning American inefficiency. I have been a strong critic of the foibles of the U.S. auto-industry, and then share-holder driven tom foolery that helped cause them.

 

I also agree that funneling public money into executives pockets does not help.

 

That is not a very clear picture of the stimulus package as I understand it. It is most likely a very nasty side-effect of it. Sort of, as Barney Frank put it "Collateral benefit." Normally we call it damage, but its doing what we need to be doing, and unfortunately it benefits some real jerks. Meanwhile, there is a European model for putting public money into infrastructure that works very well. It has worked incredibly well for the high speed rail infrastructure built up in western Europe. The government hires competing bidders to do the job. When a company is selected government dollars put thousands of citizens to work building an over-do necessity. This benefits the private sector and public transportation (or energy, or health etc.) It seems Obama has his eye on this kind of hybrid public/private innovation.

 

Inevitably the U.S. government is going to stop giving money to failing banks, and is going to start owning them. Once they have the banks under their wing they can restructure them, separate the secure branches of the company (savings, credit cards, fixed mortgages, safer 401k's) from the bad (toxic assets, mortgage backed securities) and cut the functional part of the bank loose as a private entity that can succeed, while sitting on the nasty stuff until the market can find something to do with it. Which, probably means selling it for cents on the dollar.

 

Meanwhile, you're right to be concerned, anyone who isn't has their head in the sand. We are living in economically volatile times. I remain confident that the majority of what our leadership is doing is the right kind of action. It remains to be seen if that 'right kind of action' is being administered in the right quantity with the right efficiency.

[Analogman]

This is from Duff McKagan's Column 'Appetite For Investment' @ Playboy.com:

 

If you are at all like me, then you are probably trying to navigate the murky waters of this new federal stimulus package, trying to figure out what it actually means to us as a country and to you as an individual. I am going to do my best this week to try to shed some elementary light on the many confusing aspects of this proposed bill.

 

First off, let

[John Smith]

This is from Duff McKagan's Column 'Appetite For Investment' @ Playboy.com:

 

How long before Axl sues him for using the title "appetite for Investment"? I'll guess that Axl will say it iis derivative of and causes financial harm the GNR, which he owns, and is makign money off the Appetite for Destruction album moniker.

[futureage1]

I agree with your comment concerning American inefficiency. I have been a strong critic of the foibles of the U.S. auto-industry, and then share-holder driven tom foolery that helped cause them.

 

I also agree that funneling public money into executives pockets does not help.

 

That is not a very clear picture of the stimulus package as I understand it. It is most likely a very nasty side-effect of it. Sort of, as Barney Frank put it "Collateral benefit." Normally we call it damage, but its doing what we need to be doing, and unfortunately it benefits some real jerks. Meanwhile, there is a European model for putting public money into infrastructure that works very well. It has worked incredibly well for the high speed rail infrastructure built up in western Europe. The government hires competing bidders to do the job. When a company is selected government dollars put thousands of citizens to work building an over-do necessity. This benefits the private sector and public transportation (or energy, or health etc.) It seems Obama has his eye on this kind of hybrid public/private innovation.

 

Inevitably the U.S. government is going to stop giving money to failing banks, and is going to start owning them. Once they have the banks under their wing they can restructure them, separate the secure branches of the company (savings, credit cards, fixed mortgages, safer 401k's) from the bad (toxic assets, mortgage backed securities) and cut the functional part of the bank loose as a private entity that can succeed, while sitting on the nasty stuff until the market can find something to do with it. Which, probably means selling it for cents on the dollar.

 

Meanwhile, you're right to be concerned, anyone who isn't has their head in the sand. We are living in economically volatile times. I remain confident that the majority of what our leadership is doing is the right kind of action. It remains to be seen if that 'right kind of action' is being administered in the right quantity with the right efficiency.

 

I think you may have too much faith in the stimulus and our leadership. Personally, I am now getting really nervous. The housing bill introduced yesterday is a joke and won't help half the homes in foreclosure, yet we come up with billions for AIG, GM etc, with no end in sight. It is also a voluntary program that these banks don't even have to participate in and knock down people's principles on their loans. Obama should have put a freeze on all foreclosures until the banks have been set right. But since lobbyist's own our Gov., all we get is lobbyist written bills now that help nobody. Obama is a real disappointment. We had a Buy American provision in the stimulus, but now 2 weeks later Obama announces globalization is the answer, when it has actually been the source of much of our troubles and Obama knows it. I am sick of being sold out for the benefit of corporate America and personally I see little difference in these parties. It is indefensible to ask taxpayers to pony up for these huge losses, with getting no benefit in return. Literally people will be thrown out of their houses still, even though their tax money just saved the bank now foreclosing on them.

[ZenLunatic]

That is not a very clear picture of the stimulus package as I understand it. It is most likely a very nasty side-effect of it. Sort of, as Barney Frank put it "Collateral benefit." Normally we call it damage, but its doing what we need to be doing, and unfortunately it benefits some real jerks. Meanwhile, there is a European model for putting public money into infrastructure that works very well. It has worked incredibly well for the high speed rail infrastructure built up in western Europe. The government hires competing bidders to do the job. When a company is selected government dollars put thousands of citizens to work building an over-do necessity. This benefits the private sector and public transportation (or energy, or health etc.) It seems Obama has his eye on this kind of hybrid public/private innovation.

 

Inevitably the U.S. government is going to stop giving money to failing banks, and is going to start owning them. Once they have the banks under their wing they can restructure them, separate the secure branches of the company (savings, credit cards, fixed mortgages, safer 401k's) from the bad (toxic assets, mortgage backed securities) and cut the functional part of the bank loose as a private entity that can succeed, while sitting on the nasty stuff until the market can find something to do with it. Which, probably means selling it for cents on the dollar.

 

New roads and bridges dont make us money, we cant afford it to build it. We are spending money building this when we are dead broke. When all is said and done and built, we will have nice roads and rails, but completely up to our eyes in debt. How does that help? How does this make money? Its a short term solution.

 

The only thing about the govt taking over the banks is that they arent bankers. Why not let real bankers who will be totally responsible for their own business run the banks.

[Good Old Neon]

I think you may have too much faith in the stimulus and our leadership. Personally, I am now getting really nervous. The housing bill introduced yesterday is a joke and won't help half the homes in foreclosure, yet we come up with billions for AIG, GM etc, with no end in sight. It is also a voluntary program that these banks don't even have to participate in and knock down people's principles on their loans. Obama should have put a freeze on all foreclosures until the banks have been set right. But since lobbyist's own our Gov., all we get is lobbyist written bills now that help nobody. Obama is a real disappointment. We had a Buy American provision in the stimulus, but now 2 weeks later Obama announces globalization is the answer, when it has actually been the source of much of our troubles and Obama knows it. I am sick of being sold out for the benefit of corporate America and personally I see little difference in these parties. It is indefensible to ask taxpayers to pony up for these huge losses, with getting no benefit in return. Literally people will be thrown out of their houses still, even though their tax money just saved the bank now foreclosing on them.

 

The idea that Obama represents, or has ever represented real, meaningful change was and is more a fiction dreamed up by for hire Madison Avenue types, than anything having to do with reality.

 

Both parties are entirely beholden to corporate interests - a candidate that represented real, demonstrable change, would never find him or herself at the top of either party. Obama got where he is, because he knows how to play the game. If he truly represented change in the face of entrenched power, he wouldn

[futureage1]

The idea that Obama represents, or has ever represented real, meaningful change was and is more a fiction dreamed up by for hire Madison Avenue types, than anything having to do with reality.

 

Both parties are entirely beholden to corporate interests - a candidate that represented real, demonstrable change, would never find him or herself at the top of either party. Obama got where he is, because he knows how to play the game. If he truly represented change in the face of entrenched power, he wouldn

[dondoboy]

New roads and bridges dont make us money, we cant afford it to build it. We are spending money building this when we are dead broke. When all is said and done and built, we will have nice roads and rails, but completely up to our eyes in debt. How does that help? How does this make money? Its a short term solution.

I don't think its short term

[John Smith]

The idea that Obama represents, or has ever represented real, meaningful change was and is more a fiction dreamed up by for hire Madison Avenue types, than anything having to do with reality.

 

Both parties are entirely beholden to corporate interests - a candidate that represented real, demonstrable change, would never find him or herself at the top of either party. Obama got where he is, because he knows how to play the game. If he truly represented change in the face of entrenched power, he wouldn

[lost highway]

I don't think its short term

 

 

Zing. The projects encompass much, more than transportation (which does impact the way goods are moved, and the people are moved to the goods and services, and the environmental impact and financial impact their travel has). There is about to be a historic investment in a diverse portfolio of locally grown, owned and innovated energy. Meanwhile broadband is soon to be expanded, bringing clerical efficiency (especially in the medical fields) with it.

 

Again, the stimulus package is not one hundred percent perfect. It has flaws. Obama is not the messiah. He has flaws. But the core thinking seems on track to me. I agree that I don't want my tax dollars bailing out banks that were greedier than they were wise, but we can not let banks close. It will screw everyone if we do.

 

Ultimately, at our most cynical we can still recognize that corporate interests still need stability. A truly healthy economy will benefit fat cats and blue collars alike. Meanwhile, I don't see why the middle class can't be prosperous majority in our country. The key is how you define prosperity.

[futureage1]

I disagree. I don't disagree that corporate america has much more influenece in the government than you or I do, I disagree with the premise that the change is a fiction. On one hand yes it was a marketing campaign. Aren't all elections marketing campaigns? On the other hand not everything can change immediately, or even will be changed. We all have our pet issues that we hate how they are handled or like how they are handled. In Obama's case the change is coming through his reaching out, how often over the last eight years did the other party reach out? None that I can think of. How congress handles the reaching out is another issue, but he is definitely trying to change the tone of the debate. Whether you like him or not you have to admit that he has opened a dialogue with the republicans that president Bush never attempted to start with democrats.

 

Another change has been through competence they are attempting to put competent people in positions, not just campaign flacks. Now we won

[futureage1]

Zing. The projects encompass much, more than transportation (which does impact the way goods are moved, and the people are moved to the goods and services, and the environmental impact and financial impact their travel has). There is about to be a historic investment in a diverse portfolio of locally grown, owned and innovated energy. Meanwhile broadband is soon to be expanded, bringing clerical efficiency (especially in the medical fields) with it.

 

Again, the stimulus package is not one hundred percent perfect. It has flaws. Obama is not the messiah. He has flaws. But the core thinking seems on track to me. I agree that I don't want my tax dollars bailing out banks that were greedier than they were wise, but we can not let banks close. It will screw everyone if we do.

 

Ultimately, at our most cynical we can still recognize that corporate interests still need stability. A truly healthy economy will benefit fat cats and blue collars alike. Meanwhile, I don't see why the middle class can't be prosperous majority in our country. The key is how you define prosperity.

 

Nationalize the banks today and the bailouts would stop. Ask yourself whose benefit it really is that they are not nationalized? Is it the people or the banks? They have no right to expect tax money and offer no benefits for that except business as usual. We are being ripped off and Obama will not stand up to it period. These guys should be in jail not getting manicures on our dime.

[dondoboy]

Wake up man we have a treasury secretary that does not pay over 40k in taxes and numerous other nominees that have either been confirmed or had to withdraw over tax issues. In fact, I can't think of a single nominee with no tax issues other than Clinton, she has her own special money laundering issues. Obama is now poised to sign a budget with over 9k of earmarks. Sure it takes time but this is bordering on incompetance. And if they choose to spend their time on Rush Limbaugh instead of the depression that will affect everybody, all I can say is their arrogance will be their undoing and the country's undoing. You will still have massive amounts of unemployment and foreclosures, with no help for any of them. I can only ask myself what country will be dumb enough to keep giving us money? The way things are going I now expect Obama to announce in a year or two the USA is bankrupt. He seems to utterly care less about the massive amounts of wealth being lost on a daily basis from people's 401ks, instead he hints around he will start to attack SS benefits. Sorry, that is not what I signed up for. I hope I am wrong about all of this for the USA's sake, but it is looking more and more like we were sold another pack of lies. Corporate America is still in the driver's seat.

 

If the Republicans don't want us liberals to keep talking about Limbaugh, then they may want to shut his fat ass up.

 

 

But therein lies the main tactic of Limbaugh, an old demagogue technique: create a straw man, then tear it down. The latest example was Saturday, when Limbaugh presented himself as the defender of capitalism, liberty and unfettered free markets. Obama, he has said since, is waging a

[John Smith]

Wake up man we have a treasury secretary that does not pay over 40k in taxes and numerous other nominees that have either been confirmed or had to withdraw over tax issues. In fact, I can't think of a single nominee with no tax issues other than Clinton, she has her own special money laundering issues. Obama is now poised to sign a budget with over 9k of earmarks. Sure it takes time but this is bordering on incompetence. And if they choose to spend their time on Rush Limbaugh instead of the depression that will affect everybody, all I can say is their arrogance will be their undoing and the country's undoing. You will still have massive amounts of unemployment and foreclosures, with no help for any of them. I can only ask myself what country will be dumb enough to keep giving us money? The way things are going I now expect Obama to announce in a year or two the USA is bankrupt. He seems to utterly care less about the massive amounts of wealth being lost on a daily basis from people's 401ks, instead he hints around he will start to attack SS benefits. Sorry, that is not what I signed up for. I hope I am wrong about all of this for the USA's sake, but it is looking more and more like we were sold another pack of lies. Corporate America is still in the driver's seat.

 

Wake up yourself

[bleedorange]

Well it's only getting worse out there. So F Obama and the horse he rode in on.

 

I'm tired of reading this drivel. I'll stick to the Wilco, music, and football threads.