Reply With Quote
private gain, public risk.
Ain't unregulated capitalism a uva joyride?
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc...ter1.5.1.shtml
CBO has also analyzed the policy proposals outlined in the President’s preliminary budget request.2 Under those policies, the deficit would total $1.8 trillion (13.1 percent of GDP) in 2009 and $1.4 trillion (9.6 percent of GDP) in 2010. The ulative deficit over the 2010–2019 projection period would equal $9.3 trillion and would average 5.3 percent of GDP. Debt held by the public would rise from 57 percent of GDP in 2009 to 82 percent of GDP in 2019.
private gain, public risk.
Ain't unregulated capitalism a uva joyride?
Hey dumbass. What Obama's doing isn't capitalism.
You have to admit, his predecessor softened us up for it some.
McLiar and his pitbull would have done exactly the same, carried on what the REPUGS and Goldman Paulsen started.
So, Aggie Poops Fan, you prefer AIG, Citi, BoA, and dozens of others all to go bankrupt and probably into liquidation?
I'm not for what's being done, but what's the alternative? The financial sector, unregulated and unpoliced, esp by the Repugs executing "no govt" conservatism, grabbed the US by the balls and won't let go.
All politicians want the government to take more control of the private sector, everyone needs to stop pretending that their party wont but the other party will. Fact is, the government is responsible for regulating free market to the point that things like this don't happen. Unfortunately monopolies and oligopolies invest heavily in special interest groups that lobby these concerns away. When things finally hit an unacceptable level, government over-reacts and starts to take control of private industry.
Just another example of how inefficient government is at doing anything. The entire housing crisis should never have been allowed to occur. Of course, instead of passing a little regulation concerning lending money to people that have no job/house/income, they wait for it to all blow up.
The government has no foresight. The auto industry is a great example. Instead of trying to get things in line between unions and corporations, the government (state/national/local/whatever) decided it would be better to pass a ton of emissions standards, even in the face of being unable to compete with foreign cars. Raising the cost to produce a car isn't how to remain compe ive or keep your industry viable.
This will all reach a critical mass sooner or later. There will be a point where we fall behind other nations that don't choke their own industries under silly taxes/standards/loans/takeovers. Perhaps it is just the end of our manufacturing era and another sign that the U.S. can only compete when it comes to the service and electronics industries.
No, it is not capitalism. It is also not socialism. When I watched the U.S. Congress vote to approve the trillionsin TARP money last year at the request of the Republican President and the Republican Secretary of the Treasury, I knew that we were watching an historic event:, i.e. the end of capitalism as it had been practiced in America for quite for some time. At that point, it was clear the America was moving, indeed had to move to a more European form of Capitalism, where governmnets are far more involved in the commerce of their countries than has been the case in America until last fall.
Perhaps in a global economy there is little or no choice. I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that too little effective regulation from somesource resulted in global financial meltdown, and that financial meltdown would only have been worse if what was done with TARP and and with the bailouts hadn't happened. So, I'm not ready to trash Obama's plans just yet.
The Capitalists on Wall Street brought this on themselves. Government is a reactive ins ution. It is only able to act after some excess or crisis. This crisis, laid at the feet of Capitalism, is going to result in things changing. Obama may get it right or he may get it wrong, but I absolutely guarantee you that continuing the policies of hands-off regulation of financial sectors, coupled with the one-item financial policy of more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would not , repeat NOT do anything but dig our fiscal hole larger.
I am probably more terrified of the size of the deficits than any poster on this board, but I also realize that, in the short run, there is no option but to have larger deficits. The question is Where will the political leadership come from that will get us out of them? The Republican party has no fiscal credibility. The time to show your fiscal responsibility is when you are in power. They have taken 7 of the last 11 Presidential elections, and had control of congress for 14 of the last 16 years, and the deficits continued to rise and rise and rise. They did nothing but make it worse.
So Obama's policies are clearly increasing the deficits. What republican is going to stand up with Warren Buffett and say "Yes, we have to increase taxes on those who are able to pay them, because our grandchildren can't be asked to pay for our cowardice?" Which Republican congressman or Senator from an agricultural state is going to suggest removal of the farm subsidies? Which Republican is going to stand up to the defense industry in their state and say, "we can't afford that fighter jet and we don't need it"?
The Republicans had their chances. They have nothing to offer now but handwringing and criticisms, hoping that the Dems screw up enough ( which, God knows they are capable of doing) to let them back into power. What then, a Stimulus package of more tax cuts? That's how the deficits grew under the Republicans.
Because there was never a tech bubble and bust during the 90's.
There is an alternative. Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years from now when it'll taste worse.
ding ding ding, we have a winner. Poor boutons, apparently the only economics class he got taught in home school was that Karl Marx had it right.
I tend to agree, angrydude. Deflation however painful or chaotic might be preferable to hyperinflation or national default IMO.
Unfortunately, it will never be tried again. We just now seem to be emerging from the tailspin caused by Paulson's decision to allow Lehman to fail. We'll kick the can and pray for a miraculous save, all the while hoping just to muddle through. A lot of deleveraging is left to be done. Deflation would do it quicker, but the pain of doing so suddenly and catatrophically might not be politically survivable.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-28-2009 at 08:26 PM.
I hope to see it before I die, but *pay more get less* isn't a very good campaign slogan.
I have been considering starting a drinking club in Austin based on Whig and Free Soil Party themes. That is as far as my own hopes for political change go.
I have one drinking buddy so far. I am the Whig. He is the Free Soiler. We drink a lot of beer and size up the hipster WOTM's at the Moose.
Hard to argue with.
In the spirit of evenhandedness the very same questions ought to be posed to the reigning Dems, but I agree wholeheartedly with this.
Where's Obama's goddam plan for this?
Raise taxes? How about they quit raising the spending first. They don't deserve .
I get it. Get rich off the destruction of the country. Put the country in a position where there is no other option but to raise taxes. Get rich off of further destruction of the country while raising taxes. No accountability, no justice, just more of the same ol' .
Last edited by SonOfAGun; 06-28-2009 at 11:13 PM.
That's right, we'll just pass the tab to our children and grandchildren...you selfish ****.
We're about there IMO. Taxes up, spending down. What's your plan for getting us out of the fiscal hole?
Lemme guess, it starts with a tax cut....
"Take the bitter medicine now instead of 6 years"
There wasn't any really bitter medicine after the tech bubble.
The Fed/Greenspan reduced the tech bubble effects by reflating another bubble, the stockmarket/assets/credit bubble by pushing interest rates extremely low.
So there was really no deep, long, bitter medicine after the tech bubble. Sure, gamblers who played in the tech bubble casino lost a lot, but not much beyond those fools.
Tell us how you see the bitterness of letting BoA, Citi, AIG, etc, etc, go bankrupt, maybe into liquidation, wiping out sharedholders, pension plans, ins utions, etc.
You ing wrongies have huge balls for supporting imaginary, fantastic "solutions" you absolutely ing know you'll never have to face. Fake badasses visible to all.
And tell us again how Repug tax cuts in 2000-2008 paid for themselves. Those tax cuts are still larger than the bailout costs.
$800B cuts in estate taxes ALONE.
5% corp tax rate on $300B of foreign profits repatriated, instead of 35%.
etc, etc.
???????????????
Boutons_deux, you just proved my point completely. thank you.
You're right, there was no huge problem with the economy after the tech bubble, exactly because the fed did what it did. But guess what? The FED shot its wad. There aren't any interest rates left to cut.
You can't put off a recession forever. If we had allowed the recession back in 01 the current problems wouldn't be as big....if they had happened at all without all that cheap money.
Next time its going to be even worse, only this time our money won't be worth anything after its done. And that's if we're lucky ..... we could just end up with a completely garbage economy for the next 10 years and then bring on the inflation at the end.
The current course of action is completely unsustainable.
Last edited by angrydude; 06-29-2009 at 05:32 AM.
I believe the difference is those cuts didn't crowd out private investment like the bailout is.
The govt's budget is a big part of the economy, but it isn't the economy.
"crowd out private investment"
The bailout is crowding out no one.
Private investors, capitalists have disappeared mostly, of their own seriously wounded volition, playing it safe rather the pumping up bubbles.
Yes, with Fed rate effectively zero, no leverage there, so reflation by printing money is the only lever the govt has.
I note the wrongies attacking the Repug/Dem govt for trying to fix the problem, while never mentioning the financial sector that caused the problem.
Does the private sector deserve some blame? Sure. People thought some stupid things. But when you give a kid some candy (or in this case cheap money) you shouldn't be surprised when they get hyperactive.
Last edited by angrydude; 06-29-2009 at 08:37 AM.
Absolutely. Naturally, Americans cannot understand anything other than absolutist terms used to define public policy. It's either "capitalism" or "socialism." And of course these terms themselves have been rendered devoid of any meaning other than "Republican" and "Democrat," respectively.
A true socialist would be quite disappointed with the Obama administration as much as a true capitalist would be with his predecessor.
Bush was about as much a free marketeer as Clinton. In some respects, even less.
Ah Clinton. Anyone else longing for the days when our president was just interested in how much ass he could tap instead of how many nations he could "spread democracy" to, or how many people he can put on welfare?
The best government is the one who does no governing.
Amen to that.The best government is the one who does no governing.
You are right about all of this. The Dems have no guts...but they don't even seem to recognize that there is a problem. I have such low expectations of Dems...I expect them to spend money, because that is what they do.
Repubs were supposed to be different. They proved that to be a falsehood.
So, What is Obama's plan? Nothing in this world, that I can find. Not a notion. I assume that something will emerge that includes more 'reform' as well as tax cuts. Whether or not we can survive all of the 'reform' financially is a fair question, I think. I don't question Obama's sincerity, as many conservatives do...I also am ready to consider different ideas, as many repubs are not ( 'tax cuts or die!'). But I sure as don't know what he is going to be able to do politically.
BTW, Winehole, do you [B]seriously[/B drink Sancerre? You joked earlier about beer, and I notice that you occasionally change the wine label you display, but really, Sancerre?? Whew,man, that is some sweet stuff!
We won!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
