World Politics

[scribe]

Please blaze a trail of brilliance and enumerate all of the improvements the Obama admin has accomplished so far. I double dog dare you.

When he entered office, financial giants were collapsing. After he took office, it all stopped......

 

[fatandfast]

No overhaul. It's called a take-over. You need a loan to go to school? One place to get it... it's called the Federal Bank of Uncle Sam.


This is completely wrong. The "overhaul" is so that student loans do last for more than 20 years,yes 20. Obama and his advisers made a statement that parents feel uncomfortable paying their student loan while sending their children to college and taking out another loan . People in Holland,Belgium,England and Germany must laugh at us when they see what we pay for even a primary education. People getting out of a 4 year degree program with 75,000-125,000 bill to pay

 

[Anonymous]

When he entered office, financial giants were collapsing. After he took office, it all stopped......

I'd argue the collapse hasn't really stopped but only paused. Consider;

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

And

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

"That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios "above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more," according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/CBO-Debt-90-percent/2010/03/26/id/353921

The US Treasury is beginning to have trouble finding financiers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36037444?__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cother%7Ctext%7C&par=yahoo

So now interest rates are on the rise.

This is not good news.


All rhetoric aside, are you at all concerned about this debt? Let's say both sides are at fault for where we are... should we as a nation keep up this pace of spending?

 

[Anonymous]

No overhaul. It's called a take-over. You need a loan to go to school? One place to get it... it's called the Federal Bank of Uncle Sam.


This is completely wrong. The "overhaul" is so that student loans do last for more than 20 years,yes 20. Obama and his advisers made a statement that parents feel uncomfortable paying their student loan while sending their children to college and taking out another loan . People in Holland,Belgium,England and Germany must laugh at us when they see what we pay for even a primary education. People getting out of a 4 year degree program with 75,000-125,000 bill to pay

Well then the Obama administration should take over all secondary education. That way there would be no cost and the Euros would stop laughing at us.

 

[patricknd]

just curious, has anyone here actually read the health care bill, or are all of the opinions based on the highlights?

 

[Anonymous]

I'd argue the collapse hasn't really stopped but only paused. Consider;



And




http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/CBO-Debt-90-percent/2010/03/26/id/353921

The US Treasury is beginning to have trouble finding financiers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36037444?__source=yahoo%7Cheadline%7Cother%7Ctext%7C&par=yahoo

So now interest rates are on the rise.

This is not good news.


All rhetoric aside, are you at all concerned about this debt? Let's say both sides are at fault for where we are... should we as a nation keep up this pace of spending?

Show me where massive national debt has ended our country in the past. Greece isn't ending. Greece is being pulled out of the fire by SOCIALIST principles.

The idea that you can "market" your way out of times like these is an unproven theory with no examples of any major industrialized nation ever having implemented it. I know you "market" guys think you are so much smarter than the collective policy and practice of every major industrialized country on the planet, but I am one of those that believes that when the majority (and in this case, that means 100%) act in specific ways and not another, it is because the people making the decisions know more about what they are doing than people spouting their theory at them

 

[Ripper]

All rhetoric aside, are you at all concerned about this debt? Let's say both sides are at fault for where we are... should we as a nation keep up this pace of spending?

It does not look good if certain nations were to want to cash in those T Bills!

As for comments about the EU, had to laugh about the term PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain) - as countires that are an economic 'problem' in terms of the EU.

 

[Anonymous]

Show me where massive national debt has ended our country in the past. Greece isn't ending. Greece is being pulled out of the fire by SOCIALIST principles.

The idea that you can "market" your way out of times like these is an unproven theory with no examples of any major industrialized nation ever having implemented it. I know you "market" guys think you are so much smarter than the collective policy and practice of every major industrialized country on the planet, but I am one of those that believes that when the majority (and in this case, that means 100%) act in specific ways and not another, it is because the people making the decisions know more about what they are doing than people spouting their theory at them

Ok, you are not concerned with the debt as it stands now (90% of GDP by the year 2020).

Is there any amount of debt you would be concerned about? Greece is being helped with (only) Billions in aid. That ain't gonna happen when we need it. Do you see the difference?

I don't know of anyone who is advocating a pure market economy. But I get the impression that the words 'fiscal constraint' are completely lost on you. One of the things that has rescued the US during times of crisis in the 20th century was big economic growth after the depression, WWII and the Carter years. We have now lost more jobs in this recession than the last four combined. Couple that with new big govt entitlements, the inevitable VAT or National Sales Tax, cap and trade (the LADWP has announce a 28% electricity rate hike to it's LA basin customers in part to comply with AB 32, which is CA's version of cap and trade) additional taxes and mandates to pay for the HC bill and I dare say things are different this time. LA's Mayor, yesterday, in an attempt to sell the DWP rate increase stated that there will be 18,000 green jobs created in the next 10 years. There are studies that show the full effect of AB 32 will result in over 1,000,000 jobs losses in Cali. Combine this with 32 additional states that have similar legislation pending and.... well, I don't see this economy growing at a rate that will minimize the impact of the debt.

Having wrote all that I hope I'm wrong and you are right.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The issue of debt has been discussed repeatedly by Stiglitz and Krugman. It's pointless to repeat it here, since people who continue to fail to grasp this simple point aren't going to get it anytime soon. The private sector could not sustain economic growth. At such a point in time, the government increases deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Cutting spending during a recession is absolutely foolish. What is equally foolish is deficit spending during periods of economic growth. See the Bush years. Absolutely stupid.

As for increasing the deficit, again, US bonds are still in high demand. People say China will own us, etc., etc. As the saying goes, when you owe 100k, the bank owns you. When you owe 100B, you own the bank.

Let's stop with the stupidity about deficit spending. Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows it was necessary, and if anything, it was too limited.

Obama has now overhauled health care, student loans, and is in great part responsible for avoiding a depression. Good luck running against that.

 

[Anonymous]

The issue of debt has been discussed repeatedly by Stiglitz and Krugman. It's pointless to repeat it here, since people who continue to fail to grasp this simple point aren't going to get it anytime soon. The private sector could not sustain economic growth. At such a point in time, the government increases deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Cutting spending during a recession is absolutely foolish. What is equally foolish is deficit spending during periods of economic growth. See the Bush years. Absolutely stupid.

As for increasing the deficit, again, US bonds are still in high demand. People say China will own us, etc., etc. As the saying goes, when you owe 100k, the bank owns you. When you owe 100B, you own the bank.

Let's stop with the stupidity about deficit spending. Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows it was necessary, and if anything, it was too limited.

Obama has now overhauled health care, student loans, and is in great part responsible for avoiding a depression. Good luck running against that.

Obama has NOT overhauled healthcare...the insurance companies LOVE this bill...and their stock prices are shooting up...think of that for a moment...to call the feds doling out the student loan money as a overhaul is quite a stretch...should this health care bill been pushed by bush, lefties would have been so against it...I say this as someone who is strongly left...keep some reason would you? What is next, you going to tell us that we have won the war on terrorism as well? oh yes, now the dems are for war in afghanistan but against the old one in Iraq...same reasons (fighting terrorism given for both) and as for avoiding a depression...when the real unemployment numbers are hovering around 25 to 30 percent of the adults maybe talk to some real folks out here as to what constitutes a depression...Obama, just like Bush did, is playing hard and fast with stats...politics as usual and sorry, obama and the dems sold out entirely...same bad ingredients, differ brand...

 

[Anonymous]

The issue of debt has been discussed repeatedly by Stiglitz and Krugman. It's pointless to repeat it here, since people who continue to fail to grasp this simple point aren't going to get it anytime soon. The private sector could not sustain economic growth. At such a point in time, the government increases deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Cutting spending during a recession is absolutely foolish. What is equally foolish is deficit spending during periods of economic growth. See the Bush years. Absolutely stupid.

As for increasing the deficit, again, US bonds are still in high demand. People say China will own us, etc., etc. As the saying goes, when you owe 100k, the bank owns you. When you owe 100B, you own the bank.

Let's stop with the stupidity about deficit spending. Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows it was necessary, and if anything, it was too limited.

Obama has now overhauled health care, student loans, and is in great part responsible for avoiding a depression. Good luck running against that.

Not trying to antagonize but there are other economists with differing views.

 

[Anonymous]

as for "good luck running against that"...well, we will see...I am sure the repugs are taking back the house for sure...hope not to see it, but if it does happen...thank your democratic weasles for blowing this chance...and rather than any real and honest jobs bill, they bailed out the very folks who screwed us...laughable that the tea party folks are now against that...but it is disgusting what they did...guess what, too big to fail banks and corporations are now even bigger and more massive and have more power...all this from the dems huh? good luck with this next election cycle...

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, you are not concerned with the debt as it stands now (90% of GDP by the year 2020).

Is there any amount of debt you would be concerned about? Greece is being helped with (only) Billions in aid. That ain't gonna happen when we need it. Do you see the difference?

I don't know of anyone who is advocating a pure market economy. But I get the impression that the words 'fiscal constraint' are completely lost on you. One of the things that has rescued the US during times of crisis in the 20th century was big economic growth after the depression, WWII and the Carter years. We have now lost more jobs in this recession than the last four combined. Couple that with new big govt entitlements, the inevitable VAT or National Sales Tax, cap and trade (the LADWP has announce a 28% electricity rate hike to it's LA basin customers in part to comply with AB 32, which is CA's version of cap and trade) additional taxes and mandates to pay for the HC bill and I dare say things are different this time. LA's Mayor, yesterday, in an attempt to sell the DWP rate increase stated that there will be 18,000 green jobs created in the next 10 years. There are studies that show the full effect of AB 32 will result in over 1,000,000 jobs losses in Cali. Combine this with 32 additional states that have similar legislation pending and.... well, I don't see this economy growing at a rate that will minimize the impact of the debt.

Having wrote all that I hope I'm wrong and you are right.

We have run debt compared to GDP much higher than 90% and so did many countries in the 1930's. For the most part, all of those industrialized nations are still around as are we.

There is no doubt that it is a calculated risk, but make no mistake it is CALCULATED, not BLIND. All of the pontification about how many jobs will be lost, and how Medicare/Medicaid are going to be broke because of this or that is all speculation. To suggest that another set of numbers that paints a better picture do not exist is not truthful. It is like the CBO, Republicans love them when they post numbers that support their contention, and then they become just another automaton beholden to the Great Satan Obama when they don't.

But in reality, I hope that I am right. I see a history that suggests that we will be okay. What I don't see is a history based on the ideas you espouse, and therefore I still maintain that all you have is a theory. There may be validity to it, and you may be right, but history suggests that you are chicken little (I mean that as an metaphor and not as a reflection of who you are as a person) in this, because we have been here and worse before, and we survived as a nation.

 

[Anonymous]

We have run debt compared to GDP much higher than 90% and so did many countries in the 1930's. For the most part, all of those industrialized nations are still around as are we.

There is no doubt that it is a calculated risk, but make no mistake it is CALCULATED, not BLIND. All of the pontification about how many jobs will be lost, and how Medicare/Medicaid are going to be broke because of this or that is all speculation. To suggest that another set of numbers that paints a better picture do not exist is not truthful. It is like the CBO, Republicans love them when they post numbers that support their contention, and then they become just another automaton beholden to the Great Satan Obama when they don't.

But in reality, I hope that I am right. I see a history that suggests that we will be okay. What I don't see is a history based on the ideas you espouse, and therefore I still maintain that all you have is a theory. There may be validity to it, and you may be right, but history suggests that you are chicken little (I mean that as an metaphor and not as a reflection of who you are as a person) in this, because we have been here and worse before, and we survived as a nation.

The Chinese curse "may you live in an interesting age" comes to mind.

From Wiki;

Some years ago, in 1936, I had to write to a very dear and honored friend of mine, who has since died, Sir Austen Chamberlain, brother of the present Prime Minister, and I concluded my letter with a rather banal remark, "that we were living in an interesting age." Evidently he read the whole letter, because by return mail he wrote to me and concluded as follows: "Many years ago, I learned from one of our diplomats in China that one of the principal Chinese curses heaped upon an enemy is, 'May you live in an interesting age.'" "Surely", he said, "no age has been more fraught with insecurity than our own present time." That was three years ago.

— Frederic R. Coudert, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 1939

I guess we'll have to ride this out to see what happens.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Not trying to antagonize but there are other economists with differing views.

Great. Let's see who they are and what they think. Would you care to inform us?

Not forgetting, of course, that both Stiglitz and Krugman are Nobel prize winners.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Obama has NOT overhauled healthcare...the insurance companies LOVE this bill...and their stock prices are shooting up...think of that for a moment...to call the feds doling out the student loan money as a overhaul is quite a stretch...should this health care bill been pushed by bush, lefties would have been so against it...I say this as someone who is strongly left...keep some reason would you? What is next, you going to tell us that we have won the war on terrorism as well? oh yes, now the dems are for war in afghanistan but against the old one in Iraq...same reasons (fighting terrorism given for both) and as for avoiding a depression...when the real unemployment numbers are hovering around 25 to 30 percent of the adults maybe talk to some real folks out here as to what constitutes a depression...Obama, just like Bush did, is playing hard and fast with stats...politics as usual and sorry, obama and the dems sold out entirely...same bad ingredients, differ brand...

Insurance companies love this bill? Then why were they lobbying against it? Maybe you're confusing the health care PROVIDERS with the insurance companies.

As for the rest of your post, you're just ranting.

 

[Anonymous]

The Chinese curse "may you live in an interesting age" comes to mind.

From Wiki;



I guess we'll have to ride this out to see what happens.

We will, but make no mistake, regardless of who was setting the policy, things would be difficult right now. We are in a major recession, and regardless of how we got here, getting out is not something anyone can hold a magic wand over and fix. If you think that we would be destined to live in a land flowing with milk and honey if Republicans were in charge, then I think your glasses have a rose colored tint. What is happening now has no quick fix. There is no silver bullet that will kill the monster and return peace and prosperity to the land. Economies in every age, and of every size are susceptible to downturns, and it is inevitable that on occasion, there will be a biggie. We are there, but not of historic proportions. All of the spin on the numbers will not change that.

The fact is that every generation lives in interesting times as far as I read history. If it wasn't a recession, it was a foreign war, if not a foreign war, it was a civil war, if not a civil war, it was disease, if not disease, it was oppression of groups of people for religious/socioeconomic/lack of religion/skin color/need for free agricultural labor/tribalism/and hundreds of other reasons. No, to suggest that somehow we are on the precipice of some never before seen difficulty is to ascribe a sense of grandeur to an age that is no more or less important than any other time in the history of mankind. The only thing is that we are living now, and we therefore believe our issues to be more vital or dramatic than the life and times of others. I just wish people would smoke the peace pipe or go outside or get laid or buy a new Mercedes or kill some dear or go RVing or whatever it is that will chill them the f*ck out. My advice to everyone is: Don't take yourself or our problems so damn seriously. We and they aren't that special.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

The issue of debt has been discussed repeatedly by Stiglitz and Krugman. It's pointless to repeat it here, since people who continue to fail to grasp this simple point aren't going to get it anytime soon. The private sector could not sustain economic growth. At such a point in time, the government increases deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Cutting spending during a recession is absolutely foolish. What is equally foolish is deficit spending during periods of economic growth. See the Bush years. Absolutely stupid.

As for increasing the deficit, again, US bonds are still in high demand. People say China will own us, etc., etc. As the saying goes, when you owe 100k, the bank owns you. When you owe 100B, you own the bank.

Let's stop with the stupidity about deficit spending. Everyone with an ounce of economic sense knows it was necessary, and if anything, it was too limited.

Obama has now overhauled health care, student loans, and is in great part responsible for avoiding a depression. Good luck running against that.

+1 Great post.

 

[Anonymous]

Great. Let's see who they are and what they think. Would you care to inform us?

Not forgetting, of course, that both Stiglitz and Krugman are Nobel prize winners.

Well, if the Nobel prize is your benchmark then you'd love Milton Friedman.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Arthur Laffer, Greg Mankiw, etc., etc.

You might enjoy this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

 

[patricknd]

Well, if the Nobel prize is your benchmark then you'd love Milton Friedman.

[/URL]

cause we all know they never give nobel prizes to recipients who don't deserve them.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Well, if the Nobel prize is your benchmark then you'd love Milton Friedman.

Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Arthur Laffer, Greg Mankiw, etc., etc.

You might enjoy this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

Really? You think Sowell, Williams, Laffer, and Mankiw agree with you that deficit spending during a recession is a bad thing? Is that what you're telling us?

Look, everyone here knows you've never read a word of what those people have written. It's patently obvious. At the very least, do yourself a favor and everyone else who reads the uneducated tripe you post and familiarize yourself with economics.

And you don't have to offer up that youtube link. I've actually studied from Mankiw's text. Thanks though.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

One more thing. If Friedman's laissez-faire view had been correct, we would not be in the position we are now. Government regulation is an essential counterforce to unbridled capitalism. Capitalism is driven by each firm's desire to maximize profits. Regulation places constraints on this function. Without it, we get what we saw during the Industrial Revolution.

I'm amazed at the continued lack of historical perspective from the right-wingers.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

You [Moose] might enjoy this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4

He may not have, but I enjoyed it, thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

One more thing. If Friedman's laissez-faire view had been correct, we would not be in the position we are now. Government regulation is an essential counterforce to unbridled capitalism. Capitalism is driven by each firm's desire to maximize profits. Regulation places constraints on this function. Without it, we get what we saw during the Industrial Revolution.

I'm amazed at the continued lack of historical perspective from the right-wingers.

I'm amazed that you're amazed given how much smarter you are than everyone else.

Unbridled capitalism. Who's advocating that? Your knee-jerk, reactionary conclusions about what others think and know demonstrates how small the box is you view the world from.

 

[Anonymous]

One more thing. If Friedman's laissez-faire view had been correct, we would not be in the position we are now. Government regulation is an essential counterforce to unbridled capitalism. Capitalism is driven by each firm's desire to maximize profits. Regulation places constraints on this function. Without it, we get what we saw during the Industrial Revolution.

I'm amazed at the continued lack of historical perspective from the right-wingers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html?_r=1

His proposal, which he called the negative income tax, was to replace the multiplicity of existing welfare programs with a single cash transfer — say, $6,000 — to every citizen. A family of four with no market income would thus receive an annual payment from the I.R.S. of $24,000. For each dollar the family then earned, this payment would be reduced by some fraction — perhaps 50 percent. A family of four earning $12,000 a year, for example, would receive a net supplement of $18,000 (the initial $24,000 less the $6,000 tax on its earnings).

What is now the earned income tax credit was something Friedman advocated. His version was a 'negative income tax.' A Laissez-faire description of him is just a bit over-simplified.