Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 277

Thread: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggling?

  1. #221
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    You're right. It also assumes the government will dump excessive and costly regulations. That is likely to happen if Romney is elected. Will only get worse if Obama is re-elected.
    I'm sorry. I no longer respond to people who make up what they think others wrote and ignore what was actually written.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #222
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    1) It helps to actually read what people write rather than just making up whatever **** you think they wrote.



    *sigh*

    I said that in the future we need to raise taxes and cut spending to pay down the debt. What I also said, and what you completely failed to understand is incurring debt financed spending during the period of aggregate demand drops keeps aggregate demand from declining further. As aggregate demand from non-government sources rebounds, the government should curtail debt financed spending.

    Serious. Read for comprehension rather than just making up whatever you think people write.



    This assumes that tax revenue does not stay proportionally tied as aggregate demand declines. That is a big assumption.
    So demand has been rising if only slowly. Government has continued to run trillion plus deficits helped by an easy Fed.

  3. #223
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    So demand has been rising if only slowly. Government has continued to run trillion plus deficits helped by an easy Fed.
    Oh this recovery sucks. But most financial recession ones do. It really doesn't help that individuals are deleveraging as well. Savings go up, spending goes down.

    QE effectively keeps borrowing rates low which does prop up some demand.

    What I don't get is how some people think that just letting aggregate demand drop will somehow create more jobs. If you remove government spending and there is no corresponding increase in private sector demand, aggregate demand goes down. I've never seen an explanation how reducing demand increases jobs in the private sector. I just hear sound bites about how we need to stop spending and that will cut the deficit. Without a corresponding increase in private sector demand to replace the lost demand, revenues should decline as activity wanes.

    This is the fundamental flaw of a balanced budget. Cutting to meet revenues causes aggregate demand drops which then causes less activity and less revenues until you're in default. The relations of activity to tax revenue to spending really seems to be lost on people like Mycroft. Partisans just don't seem to get that basic flow of money through the economy.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #224
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    We have had a net gain of only 400K jobs in 4 years during which quite a few HS and college grads and combat veterans are coming out in the market, none of whom are likely to have any sort of unemployment safety net to fall back on to sustain them. Spending is going down but people are not saving--they are barely scraping by. There have to be jobs for the recovery to take, otherwise we will be hit by the next dip. Wall Street is not creating any jobs domestically to speak of. We are screwed into reliving this Groundhog Day for at least the next 5 years by my estimate.

  5. #225
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-03-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Yes they are worse off and they will be for a long time. Contrary to popular belief, presidents are not gods. Neither are other politicians. No one can bring us and the rest of the world out of this mess quickly. I know no one wants to believe this but it is true. The financial sector owns the government lock stock and barrel. Anything actually effective would impinge on their fortunes and that isn't going to happen. Banks, not just US banks, caused this and working stiffs must bail them out. That is basically what austerity really means. Glass Stegal served us well for nearly forty years but it was abolished. Eight years later the system collapsed. This is only one of a long series of financial crisis. Nothing is going to be done about the bank's ability to speculate in the casino economy with their customer's money. Suck it up. Get used to it. Nothing is going to change. Oh well, we can always blame the figurehead who heads up the party in office.

  6. #226
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,396

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Oh this recovery sucks. But most financial recession ones do. It really doesn't help that individuals are deleveraging as well. Savings go up, spending goes down.

    QE effectively keeps borrowing rates low which does prop up some demand.

    What I don't get is how some people think that just letting aggregate demand drop will somehow create more jobs. If you remove government spending and there is no corresponding increase in private sector demand, aggregate demand goes down. I've never seen an explanation how reducing demand increases jobs in the private sector. I just hear sound bites about how we need to stop spending and that will cut the deficit. Without a corresponding increase in private sector demand to replace the lost demand, revenues should decline as activity wanes.

    This is the fundamental flaw of a balanced budget. Cutting to meet revenues causes aggregate demand drops which then causes less activity and less revenues until you're in default. The relations of activity to tax revenue to spending really seems to be lost on people like Mycroft. Partisans just don't seem to get that basic flow of money through the economy.
    Your theory is based on government spending and no increase in the private sector. Have you ever considered getting government out of the way will create private sector expansion, thus being able to cut government spending. Kill the job killing and industry killing EPA, kill Dodd Frank bill, open up our lands to exploration and bring home that 500 billion we send to Oil Lords every yr and all the jobs that go with it. Kill the costly job killing Obamacare, kill regulations that slow businesses to expand, stop subsidizing businesses, all businesses. Lower the corporate tax rate, and the capital gains rate. These are just a few examples. To think you can just continue to borrow and spend to prosperity is insane. All you have to do is look at those countries in Europe and you can easily see more borrowing and spending is not the answer, further no one will give you the money.
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

  7. #227
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-03-12 @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    All you have to do is look at those countries in Europe and you can easily see more borrowing and spending is not the answer, further no one will give you the money.
    Yeah, just look at Germany. Their auto industry is highly profitable and they produce more cars than we do. Their auto workers are paid twice what ours are. There are far more regulations on them than on our auto makers. Fifty percent of the seats on the board of directors are held by labor.

    Regulations hurting business? After all regulations were taken off the banking industry it collapsed.

  8. #228
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Your theory is based on government spending and no increase in the private sector.
    Which was entirely true in the recent recession. Furthermore, it is generally true in all recessions. As demand decreases, private sector firms cut back as there is overall less demand for their goods. The net outcome is that aggregate demand declines. Without government spending, net aggregate demand will contiune to wane as private sector spending is curtailed to match supply with demand. This is a kind of economics my school taught in 5th grade. Apparently that's abnormal.

    Have you ever considered getting government out of the way will create private sector expansion, thus being able to cut government spending.
    This requires that government is somehow blocking private sector firms from spending money and hiring people. This also somehow requires government from blocking banks from lending to commercial firms. This also somehow requires government from blocking consumer spending. Government is suppose to cut back spending as private sector spending increases. As net aggregate demand increases due to private sector spending, public sector should cut back leaving the economy at the same net aggregate demand it was before the government cuts. Furthermore, if private sector demand is already spending there is no need for government stimulus to aggregate demand. You seem very unaware of what a recession is and how it impacts private companies.

    Kill the job killing and industry killing EPA, kill Dodd Frank bill, open up our lands to exploration and bring home that 500 billion we send to Oil Lords every yr and all the jobs that go with it.
    Removing the EPA is a terrible idea. Unless you think arsenic in your water is okay and that firms should be free to pollute how much they want with no regard to the environment. The EPA saved thousands of jobs when it enforced a sulfur cap and trade under Bush Sr. Acid rain was badly damaging the lumber, recreation and fishing industries. Enforcing a law that reduced acid rain saved thousands of jobs at a low cost to polluters who then actually recaptured the sulfur and sold it for profit to industrial firms. The Frank Dodd Bill, while costly to the financial industry will create regulatory jobs. Furthermore, if you think the financial industry has learned its lesson, you clearly have not been paying any attention. We need to bring back the full Glass-Stegall act. Frank-Dodd is not enough. And we already have millions of acres on lease that are not being used by commercial firms. What we should do is force auctions on inactive leases. Buy a lease from the government and you have 5 years to use it. Failure to do so causes the lease to go to auction. The notion that we are barring firms from using resources is total crap if you look at the inactive land leases that the private sector holds. As for oil, the largest US export last year was refined oil products. How about you call for the banning of export of refined oil products before pushing more drilling?

    Kill the costly job killing Obamacare, kill regulations that slow businesses to expand, stop subsidizing businesses, all businesses.
    Obamcare isn't even in affect yet. Furthermore, Obamacare should actually reduce premiums as people are forced to pay for their own insurance. That should leave private firms with more money to hire. And if you stop subsidizing businesses, they stop hiring and curtail operations, we see this right now with thousands of small high tech businesses collapsing as the high tech business federal tax credits ended. You just called for job killing proposals. It is pretty clear from your sound bites you really don't understand much of what you say. It seems all you are doing is regurgitating what Fox news tells you without anything of your own original thought.

    Lower the corporate tax rate, and the capital gains rate. These are just a few examples.
    The US has one of the lower effective average corporate tax rates in the World. Before you make an asinine statement, learn what effective is verse statutory.

    To think you can just continue to borrow and spend to prosperity is insane
    Worked for Bush.

    All you have to do is look at those countries in Europe and you can easily see more borrowing and spending is not the answer, further no one will give you the money.
    Uh that is highly simplistic. Every country in Europe that is having problems has its own situation. Spain had solid financials going into the recession but with a private sector that built a huge housing boom. Spain's problem is basically a deep recession. They did not over spend or promise benefits that were excessive. Spain was in many ways a model financial country back in 2007.

    Ireland's problems stem essentially from Fianna Fail's promise to back unilaterally all of its banks. Bad idea. Essentially bad private sector banking was backed by the government without the government looking at what it was backing. Ireland's financials were solid in 2007 as well.

    The only real nation that actually had a problem from the beginning in the government was Greece. But Greece suffers from a wholesale culture of tax evasion, weak exports and overspending. It's hard to make your budget balance when your people are actively evading taxes.

    The fact that you treat Europe as a single block shows you really don't care about the facts or educating yourself. But that gels with your sound bite only no original material post. You want sound bites, not real understanding.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #229
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogfussle View Post
    Yeah, just look at Germany. Their auto industry is highly profitable and they produce more cars than we do. Their auto workers are paid twice what ours are. There are far more regulations on them than on our auto makers. Fifty percent of the seats on the board of directors are held by labor.

    Regulations hurting business? After all regulations were taken off the banking industry it collapsed.
    Users like Born Free do not research topics much. German Auto industry also makes superior models that sell often for premiums. While there are more affordable subsidiaries, the bulk of German auto industry is not going after the low priced market. The US auto industry is far different with everything from cheap cars to who would pay that kind of money cars.

    I do agree that letting the financial industry police itself was a terrible idea. Blame Clinton and the GOP for getting rid of Glass-Stegall.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #230
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,351

    Re: Voters say they’re worse off after four years of Obama, so why is Romney struggli

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Oh this recovery sucks. But most financial recession ones do. It really doesn't help that individuals are deleveraging as well. Savings go up, spending goes down.

    QE effectively keeps borrowing rates low which does prop up some demand.

    What I don't get is how some people think that just letting aggregate demand drop will somehow create more jobs. If you remove government spending and there is no corresponding increase in private sector demand, aggregate demand goes down. I've never seen an explanation how reducing demand increases jobs in the private sector. I just hear sound bites about how we need to stop spending and that will cut the deficit. Without a corresponding increase in private sector demand to replace the lost demand, revenues should decline as activity wanes.

    This is the fundamental flaw of a balanced budget. Cutting to meet revenues causes aggregate demand drops which then causes less activity and less revenues until you're in default. The relations of activity to tax revenue to spending really seems to be lost on people like Mycroft. Partisans just don't seem to get that basic flow of money through the economy.
    I don't think you can cite one post from me that calls for a balanced budget. In times like these I would like to see a more sustainable deficit level being run. Something around the long term growth prospects for the nation of 2-3%. Running unsustainable deficit levels leads people to be concerned about the viability of our economy in my view. Fed chairman Bernanke has repeatedly called for a plan to get deficits down to sustainable levels in the "medium term". That is usually 3-5 years. He has said that for about 3-4 years so we should be at a point of starting to reduce our dependency on Federal deficits.

    People keep talking about demand, but we reality is we need demand in specific, hard hit areas. For example, the chairman talks about the need to keep deflation away, which I agree is a demand killer. My sense is that keeping interest rates, especially mortgage rates low with the expectation of them going lower is actually hurting demand for housing. Why buy a house now, even with rates low when the Fed is doing everything possible to lower rates even more. I could be wrong but even the hint of mortgage rates rising a bit would take people off the sidelines and buying now rather than delaying with the knowledge that rates will only go in one direction for the next few years, down.

    Unsustainable high deficit brings the threat of higher taxes, or inflation or both down the road which can be a deflator when thinking about how to get people to invest, which is a form of demand.

    As you know in a large, varied economy such as the U.S. there are many levers that move the lever, demand being one. I would tend to disagree that the key for more demand comes solely from federal government spending. Perhaps to much spending creates the inverse as people are fearful of long term consequences thus the increase in savings.

Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •