Barack Obama and Respect

**dalem** · 26 Apr 12,, 18:30

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

And what I read was after the Cash for Clunkers campaign the Used Car market was at an all time high and the prices the most expensive they had been in years.

Correct. Obama took a market that was doing just fine and artificially raised prices across the board. Everything the guy touches gets more expensive - accident or design?

-dale

**omon** · 26 Apr 12,, 21:32

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

And I can respect Obama a whole hell of a lot more than I could ever respect Romney because I know Obama worked his way up through the ranks, and wasn't born into a world of privilege and affluence with a multi-million dollar silver spoon in his mouth. .

oh please, than you're no different than ppl that only voted for obama cuz he is black.

well you know hitler had a difficult childhood, was raised in poor family, and had abusive father, than he became a politician, won election, and turned germany into world leader, and became almost godlike leader in germany up untill ww2.
yet his deeds cancel all that out.

i coudn't care less how obama was raised, and in what family. all i care is what his actions turn this country into.

**astralis** · 26 Apr 12,, 21:40

pari,

I'm not sure this is true. I look at most periods of recent history (lets say since the foundation of the USA) and I see the rich having a very big say in politics. What's lacking now is the opportunity to expand and exploit resources outside the settled establishment that the rich need to remain rich.

the wealthy, of course, have always had a big say in politics. but the shrinking of the wealth gap from the period 1930-1980 played an enormous role in fostering moderate policies.

once wealth started to concentrate more heavily again, the wealthy had still greater means to lobby for policies that bolster their position. the top 1% of the US comprised 9% of the nation's wealth in the 1970s, and 23% by 2007. that type of concentration has inevitable political effects.

Europe had their empires, the US it's internal empire, expanding across the west. There's nowhere to expand to now, the only avenues for entrepeneurs is in finding new niches within existing societal structures. Within that paradigm there is mobility though: expensive pc games being replaced by smart phone games for a couple of dollars. Hipstamatic is an absurdity but Rovio et al demonstrate there's still gold in them thar hills.

several points.

the difference between an industrial economy and a knowledge economy is that one did not necessarily need education to succeed in an industrial economy. most of the "robber barons" of the gilded age, for instance, came from hardscrabble families, and created an empire through sheer determination as well as a talent for labor management.

it's increasingly harder to replicate this with a knowledge economy, which demands a fairly high level of education plus the touch of native genius...and considerable PR skills...plus that talent for labor management.

then there's the stock market. the expansion of the market throughout the 20th century meant that there are multiple products that can help the wealthy diversify and reduce risk. give me $10 million to play with, and I can set up within minutes a 70-30 bond-stock ETF spread with approximately 5% annual return, with only a ~15-20% given chance that you'll have a negative return in one year-- of -5% on the outside. PLUS, put enough of the bonds in tax-exempt munis and voila, your tax exposure is minimized at the same time-- and they were already lower to begin with because you can take advantage of the lower long-term cap gains rate.

but if you have less than millions, the way to grow wealth is to increase your exposure to riskier stocks (which is why young people are advised to have their portfolio's bond percentage equivalent to their age).

staying rich in the stock market is fairly easy. GETTING rich is another kettle of fish.

Within that paradigm there is mobility though: expensive pc games being replaced by smart phone games for a couple of dollars. Hipstamatic is an absurdity but Rovio et al demonstrate there's still gold in them thar hills.

the paradigm of the upper-middle class, mainly...even while the upper-middles are the most heavily taxed folks in america.

that's why i think obama's current focus on the buffett rule is mistaken; it's peanuts, as JAD and others have pointed out. much more important, in the long-run, to focus on education.

**JAD_333** · 27 Apr 12,, 02:08

Originally Posted by astralis

that's why i think obama's current focus on the buffett rule is mistaken; it's peanuts, as JAD and others have pointed out. much more important, in the long-run, to focus on education.

Asty:

Both Romney and Obama are in agreement on extending the current interest rate on student loans. Call that a draw on the political campaign front.

But I seriously doubt Obama can sustain education as a campaign focal point. I wish he would, but I doubt he's that stupid...stupid as in it's the economy. For starters, he stands little chance of getting the messianic support from college age voters that he got in 2008. They're disillusioned.

...a survey released last week by Georgetown University and the Public Religion Research Institute found that fewer than half of young voters say they are certain to show up at the polls this time. They rank jobs and unemployment as their most critical issue, according to the survey, with the federal deficit and education nearly tied for second place.

Obama, Romney focus on student debt as campaign issue - The Washington Post

Today's college bound kids are worried about their job prospects when they graduate in 4 years. They are going to lean toward the candidate who seems most capable of reviving the economy. Idealism this time around will sell badly.

**TopHatter** · 27 Apr 12,, 02:11

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Idealism this time around will sell badly.

It's about damn time

**dmwnc1959** · 27 Apr 12,, 05:36

Originally Posted by TopHatter

He knew goddamn good and well what he was getting into

Like I said before I don't think anyone knew. Obama was reportedly advised by the Commerce Department a forecast decline in GDP of less than 4% for the last quarter before he took office when it was actually almost 10%. That is like getting hit by a shit-storm of biblical proportions when you were expecting a light drizzle of spring rain.

Originally Posted by omon

oh please, than you're no different than ppl that only voted for obama cuz he is black.

Or the people who voted for McCain because he was a war hero, or 'not the black one', or voted for Palin because she was a woman, or a 'pitt bull lipstick wearing hockey mom'.

Originally Posted by Genosaurer

When Obama took office late January 2009, national average gas price was was ~$1.84. Today it's $3.83. "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" seems pretty relevant to me.

With George W. Bush the price of gasoline increased from $1.60 per gallon when he took office in January 2001 to $4.40 per gallon in July 2008, a jump of 275 percent.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Seems to me that if money is the measure by which you judge a well-lived life, your perspective is poisoned.

Go back and read the quote. I said nothing about being poor and its measure on a well-lived life. What I said is that is effects even the smallest of your everyday decisions. Not the same.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Could his policies have set the economy right even with 100% bipartisan cooperation?

Where would our economy and unemployment rate be if say Romney had won instead of McCain and became president, had let GM go bankrupt and let the housing market hit bottom? Would our free market economy work with tens of millions more people evicted from their homes by the banks and living on the streets and tens of millions of more people out of work because we allowed the American auto industry to die?

Where would our middle class and poor be if we allowed the Ryan Plan to pass, which by the way the Catholic Church has been hammering Ryan for his war against the poor.

And no Dale , I don't hate rich people. I don't envy them. I do care when they rub it in our face as they are running for president and turn their nose up at the middle class of America and favor tax breaks for corporations making billions in profit and want to implement enormous cuts to food aid and medical assistance to the poor.

**JAD_333** · 27 Apr 12,, 07:05

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

Go back and read the quote. I said nothing about being poor and its measure on a well-lived life. What I said is that is effects even the smallest of your everyday decisions. Not the same.

The entire aura of your remarks about the dignity of the poor centers on their lack of money.

Where would our economy and unemployment rate be if say Romney were president and had let GM go bankrupt and let the housing market hit bottom?

Hypothetical question. You cannot judge what the cumulative effect might have been of Romney's actions had he served the past three years. The GM bailout might have had a completely different outcome in light of all he might have done.

Where would our middle class and poor be if we allowed the Ryan Plan to pass

,

Well, for one thing state and local government would have more responsibility for much of what the Federal government does today. More than likely Ryan's tax cuts would have made it possible for state and local government to raise taxes to take over many Federal responsibilities. But the short answer is, we don't know because the Ryan budget hasn't been enacted.

which by the way the Catholic Church has been hammering Ryan for his war against the poor.

The argument is over the church's doctrine of subsidiarity which holds that people should work and raise themselves up and when they need help it should first come from 'close' government, not big government. But the doctrine supports big government help whenever there is not other way to defend the poor against the excesses of the wealthy and powerful. Ryan will lose the argument on doctrinaire grounds, and many in the church will oppose his budget, but the basic argument isn't over whether Ryan's budget will work.

Would our free market economy work with tens of millions more people evicted from their homes by the banks and living on the streets and tens of millions of more people out of work because we allowed the American auto industry to die?

"Tens of millions more people evicted" is a gross exaggeration. Total evictions for 2006 through 2011 have been less than 6 million. Foreclosures in the same period were about 17 million. Evictions only occur in 1 out of 3 foreclosures.

I doubt the US auto industry would have died if GM had gone under. But I agree that saving it was probably the best move under the circumstances.
I would certainly have chosen saving GM over throwing money away on Solyndra.

**JAD_333** · 27 Apr 12,, 07:22

dm:

If you don't mind the suggestion, I'd recommend you read “The Second Bill of Rights – FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever” by Cass R. Sunstein, Professor of Jurisprudence at Chicago School of Law.

IMO, it provides the best liberal arguments for taxing the rich at a higher rate than the lower and middle class. It also makes the best liberal case for government action to lift up the poor.

That is not to say I agree with Sunstein's ideas, but they are interesting and well thought out.

**dmwnc1959** · 27 Apr 12,, 07:34

Originally Posted by JAD_333

The entire aura of your remarks about the dignity of the poor centers on their lack of money.

Again, I don't believe I have mentioned 'dignity'. I have mentioned the struggles of the poor and the tough choices they have to make every day.

Hypothetical question. You cannot judge what the cumulative effect might have been of Romney's actions had he served the past three years. The GM bailout might have had a completely different outcome in light of all he might have done.

It could have been disastrous and taken a decade to recover from. But lets not let that point interfere with the fact that Romney would have allowed it to happen, to let it fail. and that's the kind of decisions he would make as President.

Well, for one thing state and local government would have more responsibility for much of what the Federal government does today. More than likely Ryan's tax cuts would have made it possible for state and local government to raise taxes to take over many Federal responsibilities. But the short answer is, we don't know because the Ryan budget hasn't been enacted.

Several of the state and local governments have already shown that even though they campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" their entire focus has been legislation against contraception, abortion control measures, and killing unions. And I am going to trust them on how to decide benefits should be distributed?

"Tens of millions more people evicted" is a gross exaggeration. Total evictions for 2006 through 2011 have been less than 6 million. Foreclosures in the same period were about 17 million. Evictions only occur in 1 out of 3 foreclosures.

If the banks had not been bailed out, if the banks had been allowed to fail, or had laws not been passed protecting home owners, would it really be an exaggeration the way the housing bubble collapsed and mortgage fiasco exploded? If someone hadn't stepped in for the rights and protection of consumers, how many more would have been out on the street?

**dmwnc1959** · 27 Apr 12,, 07:36

Originally Posted by JAD_333

dm:

If you don't mind the suggestion, I'd recommend you read “The Second Bill of Rights – FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever” by Cass R. Sunstein, Professor of Jurisprudence at Chicago School of Law.

IMO, it provides the best liberal arguments for taxing the rich at a higher rate than the lower and middle class. It also makes the best liberal case for government action to lift up the poor.

That is not to say I agree with Sunstein's ideas, but they are interesting and well thought out.

THANKS!

I'll make it a point to seek it out tomorrow. I doubt my local library carries it. May have to pluck out some money and purchase it.

**Wayfarer** · 27 Apr 12,, 07:45

Originally Posted by astralis

wayfarer,

i think the other posts i have on the topic are more than enough, but this sentence requires some scrutiny. first, the scale; second, as to what the money does.

if, for instance, we use international investing money at current low rates to create better infrastructure that increases economic efficiency-- the US rate of return can be higher than the opportunity cost of borrowing the money.

Thats the key word though really. In terms of infrastructure, the only thing I'd be in support of is providing re-education opportunities to allow the workforce to modernize. Otherwise, its just creating physical infrastructure prematurely before demand.

ditto with a new GI bill, or other increased education opportunities. if it means someone whom has a job instead of having a gaping resume hole (which is why people whom go into the job market during a recession have a tendency to display reduced earnings throughout his entire life!)-- the person becomes more economically effective.

For certain professions yes. There is no point subsidizing an arts undergraduate if there is virtually no demand whatsoever. What the Govt. should do is have a big sit down with all industry and see where the highest demand for skilled labor is, and from then on proceed to subsidize those professions.

i'm not saying every dollar borrowed has such leveraging effects,

Every dollar should, but that is quite a idealistic view to have. However, considering that what I said above is still true, since the amount required to be repaid is the amount that must be siphoned off a future U.S economy.

but it's clear that the debt situation is not due to stimulus, which has for the most part been economically effective. instead, it is due to a far wider, demographic shift that will overburden our current social safety net, and which in effect DOES transfer trillions of future generations' capital to a relatively ineffective, literally moribund sector. it is the latter that needs reform.

Right. And its impossible to fix in the space of three years a welfare/healthcare/s.s addiction that has been funded via deficit budgets for decades. But the cut has to happen, sooner rather than later, if economic recovery is wanted. As long as the cuts are prolonged, so to is the chance for real recovery, there's a lot of borrowed money that is making its rounds through the economy and that isn't an indication of how healthy the economy is.

**Genosaurer** · 27 Apr 12,, 15:16

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

It could have been disastrous and taken a decade to recover from. But lets not let that point interfere with the fact that Romney would have allowed it to happen, to let it fail. and that's the kind of decisions he would make as President.

Please. This is the same ridiculous hyperbole we heard in 2008 when the very moderate McCain was picked as the Republican candidate. In spite of the letter next to his name, Romney is barely even what I'd consider a conservative. Have you even looked at his record when he was Governor of Massachusetts?

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

Several of the state and local governments have already shown that even though they campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" their entire focus has been legislation against contraception, abortion control measures, and killing unions. And I am going to trust them on how to decide benefits should be distributed?

Well, that's the beauty of deciding these things at the state level - if you don't like how your state government is handling those issues there are 49 other states in the union with different policies.

**JAD_333** · 27 Apr 12,, 18:31

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

It could have been disastrous and taken a decade to recover from. But lets not let that point interfere with the fact that Romney would have allowed it to happen, to let it fail. and that's the kind of decisions he would make as President.

Romney opposed the original bailout of the GM, Chrysler and Ford in an op ed piece written shortly after the 2008 election while Bush was still in office. (GM & Chrysler eventually got about $100 billion starting with $17 billion from the Bush admin. Ford was flush with cash and declined Fed money). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op...mney.html?_r=1

Romney argued that the auto makers should be saved but through the time-honored method of financial reorganization, or what takes place in the bankruptcy process. He was against a bailout because, without significant changes in the culture of US auto manufacturers, it would perpetuate the practices that caused its demise, such as an adversarial relationship with the unions, wasteful perks lavished on executives, a bloated management, and an intrinsic competitive disadvantage against foreign-owned US car makers. Mind you, he was giving his opinion in 2008 before it was known what changes the government would force on GM and Chrysler and more importantly what sacrifices stock and bondholders and the unions would have to make. In the end GM did enter bankruptcy and was reorganized, and recapitalized.

This is the genesis of the accusation that Romney would not have bailed out the car makers. Since then Romney has had to duck and weave to extract himself from the appearance that he would have let the US auto makers collapse under any circumstances. I think had he been in a position to call the shots he might have conditioned a bailout much as it happened. But it is too late now to make that case. Still, there is reasonable doubt. Both Bush and Obama approached a bailout very cautiously. It was no slam dunk for either. Romney was looking at it as a CEO of a company, not as a president trying to save jobs. He should have known better.

Several of the state and local governments have already shown that even though they campaigned on "jobs, jobs, jobs" their entire focus has been legislation against contraception, abortion control measures, and killing unions. And I am going to trust them on how to decide benefits should be distributed?

Don't make the mistake of confusing the status quo today with what might be the status quo if the Ryan budget is passed. The Ryan budget is designed to be implemented over a long period of time, a transition period, so to speak. As it comes into play, state and local politicians will be campaigning for election on how best to assume responsibilities no longer carried out by the Federal government. Whether you agree with it or not, the Ryan budget is not the cruel thing people make it out to be. But it is risky in that it assumes the states will pick up the slack. It's very dynamic in concept; things end at one level and start at another, but with no guarantees that they will. If I were a liberal I'd be damn scared of it. We need a good debate on it in this country, not all the scare mongering that we've gotten so far.

If the banks had not been bailed out, if the banks had been allowed to fail, or had laws not been passed protecting home owners, would it really be an exaggeration the way the housing bubble collapsed and mortgage fiasco exploded? If someone hadn't stepped in for the rights and protection of consumers, how many more would have been out on the street?

What I said in response to what you said was: "Tens of millions more people evicted" is a gross exaggeration. Total evictions for 2006 through 2011 have been less than 6 million. Foreclosures in the same period were about 17 million. Evictions only occur in 1 out of 3 foreclosures.

You made an argument using exaggerated statistics. End of story.

**dalem** · 27 Apr 12,, 18:36

Originally Posted by dmwnc1959

Where would our economy and unemployment rate be if say Romney had won instead of McCain and became president, had let GM go bankrupt and let the housing market hit bottom? Would our free market economy work with tens of millions more people evicted from their homes by the banks and living on the streets and tens of millions of more people out of work because we allowed the American auto industry to die?

We'd be over the recession and coming out of it with stronger businesses, wiser managers and workers, increasing employment and true market values for housing. Lots of cheap hardware and real estate available and confidence in contract law unshaken.

Where would our middle class and poor be if we allowed the Ryan Plan to pass, which by the way the Catholic Church has been hammering Ryan for his war against the poor.

They'd be pretty much in the same place, short term. Long term they'd be far better off.

And no Dale , I don't hate rich people. I don't envy them. I do care when they rub it in our face as they are running for president and turn their nose up at the middle class of America and favor tax breaks for corporations making billions in profit and want to implement enormous cuts to food aid and medical assistance to the poor.

Why?

And I'm serious. Why do you care

when they rub it in our face as they are running for president and turn their nose up at the middle class of America and favor tax breaks for corporations making billions in profit and want to implement enormous cuts to food aid and medical assistance to the poor.

?

-dale

**omon** · 27 Apr 12,, 18:51

someone needs a reality pill.
rich ppl don't care about poor, rich are in the gvmnt making laws, that benefit THEM, corporations\businesses that they have obligations to, for giving them funds for elections, and pbly kick backs too. none cares about poors, if you think anyone on capitol hills does anything to aid poors without it being beneficial to them or their sponsors in some way, you live in fantasy land, just open your eyes and see what happens around, you'll see i'm right.
don't hate rich, become one. but you really have to want it and willing to do whatever is needed, everyone i know that has this attitude achieved their goals.
i see 2 kinds of ppl in this world, 1 those that always beach and moan how world isn't fare, and what needs to be done to make it better (lol, like they have a clue), and 2, ppl that see the world how it really is, take it that way, and adjust themselves to this world, use situation at hand to achieve their goal in present environment.