Thread: Obama: approve or disapprove?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Did we overheat we never really got any inflation

Is inflation the only indicator of an overheated economy? I think we controled the inflation pretty well by using deficit spending. Charge it to the future. But we did have a bubble economy. The real estate value was way overheated.

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Oh come on?! His own words. Do I really to put up any of the dozens of youtubes where he said that exact thing. He told Joe the Plumber plain as day! "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around a little". Seriously, you had to have seen or heard this some time?

That's not really socialism though. An off-hand comment on the campaign trail that got blown out of proportion. We have a progressive tax code, something even Adam Smith advocated, and Obama's policies were to simply allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, or otherwise jigger with the tax code. He has resisted the urge to "nationalize" entire industries, or increase high tax rates to confiscatory levels: 91%, 70&, etc.

7th,

Oh come on?! His own words. Do I really to put up any of the dozens of youtubes where he said that exact thing. He told Joe the Plumber plain as day! "I don't want to punish your success, I just want to spread the wealth around a little". Seriously, you had to have seen or heard this some time?

exactly as hero said. i actually find it amusing that people are screaming SOCIALISM now, when fervent anti-communists in the 50s and 60s thought that high taxes on the wealthy were good not just to fund the fight against international communism but also to keep public discontent down.

and our taxes as a proportion of our wealth are actually lower than any time since the roaring 20s...while the ratio of average CEO pay to average worker pay has gone from approximately 35:1 to 450:1 and the share of wealth held by the top 1% compared to the bottom 99% has increased by over 50% over the last twenty years.

so the reality is that the american economy has actually been undergoing considerable regressive wealth redistribution over the last generation. by all measures, current-day US economics, society and politics is the least socialistic it has ever been in all of american history, gilded age (age of robber barons) included. even if all the worst nightmares conservatives dream in terms of obama "wealth redistribution" come to fruition, this would really only mean reversing approximately 5-10 years' worth of regression.

gunnut,

I remember 1 thing from my Econ 101 class, low interest rate for too long will cause the economy to overheat.

ironically libertarian thought run amuck. greenspan thought that even if credit was eased, the "self-regulating" nature of the free market would ensure that the credit would be used wisely. oops.

Originally Posted by astralis

even if all the worst nightmares conservatives dream in terms of obama "wealth redistribution" come to fruition, this would really only mean reversing approximately 5-10 years' worth of regression.

Hey man, don't reverse the regression. I plan to be rich some day.

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

ironically libertarian thought run amuck. greenspan thought that even if credit was eased, the "self-regulating" nature of the free market would ensure that the credit would be used wisely. oops.

I don't think the market failed, but more like an incorrectly regulated market failed. When we socialize losses and privatize gains, people will figure out new ways to take more risks...simply because the risk is not theirs to take.

gunnut,

Hey man, don't reverse the regression. I plan to be rich some day.

once you are rich, the amount of damage the government can do to you is very minimal compared to the amount of damage fluctuations in the market can do. stockbrokers and bankers aren't crying because obama threatened to raise their tax rate 4%, they're crying because global stock market losses have totaled $21 trillion in the last year.

gunnut,

I don't think the market failed, but more like an incorrectly regulated market failed. When we socialize losses and privatize gains, people will figure out new ways to take more risks...simply because the risk is not theirs to take.

that may be true for the real estate bubble, but what about the bubble in derivatives and banking that occurred after deregulation thereof? with the free market less regulated in the 2000s than they were in the early 1990s, we socialized less losses and privatized more gain.

now in canada, where i believe you would argue is more "socialist" than america, their banks are ranked the healthiest in the world while american banks are ranked 40th. why?

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,



once you are rich, the amount of damage the government can do to you is very minimal compared to the amount of damage fluctuations in the market can do. stockbrokers and bankers aren't crying because obama threatened to raise their tax rate 4%, they're crying because global stock market losses have totaled $21 trillion in the last year.

Yeah, but paper value can recover fairly quickly, and can actually recover. Money to the government is gone.

gunnut,

Yeah, but paper value can recover fairly quickly, and can actually recover. Money to the government is gone.

not really. think about it- if your fund value goes down 30%, how much does your fund value need to go up in order for you to simply recoup your losses?

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,



that may be true for the real estate bubble, but what about the bubble in derivatives and banking that occurred after deregulation thereof? with the free market less regulated in the 2000s than they were in the early 1990s, we socialized less losses and privatized more gain.

now in canada, where i believe you would argue is more "socialist" than america, their banks are ranked the healthiest in the world while american banks are ranked 40th. why?

They have the correct regulation?)