“Ask yourself – are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2012 11:28 PM GMT
    Ouch.

    http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/obama-359136-moon-together.html

    Round about this time in the election cycle, a presidential challenger finds himself on the stump and posing a simple test to voters: "Ask yourself – are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

    But, in fact, you don't need to ask yourself, because the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances has done it for you. Between 2007 and 2010, Americans' median net worth fell 38.8 percent – or from $126,400 per family to $77,300 per family. Oh, dear. As I mentioned a few months ago, when readers asked me to recommend countries they could flee to, most of the countries worth fleeing to Americans can no longer afford to live in. [...]

    Self-pity is never an attractive quality, and in an elected head of state even less so. Obama whines that his opponents say it's all his fault. One can argue about whose fault it is, but not, as my colleagues at National Review pointed out, whose responsibility it is: It's his. He's the only president we have. And he made things worse. He increased the national debt by some 70 percent, and what do we have to show for it? No dams, no railroads, no moon shots. Just government, and bureaucracy, and regulation, unto national bankruptcy.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2012 11:47 PM GMT
    You know that the decreased wealth and the job that the president is doing is pretty much unrelated. Hopefully you are aware of a few things. First, Wealth=Assets-debts pretty basic. Most americans hold wealth in their homes. Banks gave a whole lot of loans to a bunch of people who couldn't afford them. Houses foreclosed, bankruptcies happened, and people lost a lot of their wealth because they had a major loss in assets and major gains in debts.

    What does that have to do with the president???

    If you're going to have a conversation on the job that the president is doing then that's fair. But, let's be real here. Lending banks took a lot of risk they shouldn't have and that is the cause of Americans drop in wealth. I can't believe anyone would be so gullible as to think that the drop in american wealth is a direct result of the current president. If McCain had been president guess what there would have still been a huge drop in American wealth because even with perfect fiscal policy(whatever that may be) americans would still have lost their homes!

    You could have a discussion on how the drop in wealth can be attributed to previous congresses or presidential administrations or even RATINGS AGENCIES!!!! or whatever because there was a failure on all levels to make sure that if banks were creating money to give to people it wasn't just anyone out there who could sign their name.

    That would be a serious conversation. Not a parade of horrors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2012 11:53 PM GMT
    SbStudent saidYou know that the decreased wealth and the job that the president is doing is pretty much unrelated. Hopefully you are aware of a few things. First, Wealth=Assets-debts pretty basic. Most americans hold wealth in their homes. Banks gave a whole lot of loans to a bunch of people who couldn't afford them. Houses foreclosed, bankruptcies happened, and people lost a lot of their wealth because they had a major loss in assets and major gains in debts.

    What does that have to do with the president???

    If you're going to have a conversation on the job that the president is doing then that's fair. But, let's be real here. Lending banks took a lot of risk they shouldn't have and that is the cause of Americans drop in wealth. I can't believe anyone would be so gullible as to think that the drop in american wealth is a direct result of the current president. If McCain had been president guess what there would have still been a huge drop in American wealth because even with perfect fiscal policy(whatever that may be) americans would still have lost their homes!

    You could have a discussion on how the drop in wealth can be attributed to previous congresses or presidential administrations or even RATINGS AGENCIES!!!! or whatever because there was a failure on all levels to make sure that if banks were creating money to give to people it wasn't just anyone out there who could sign their name.

    That would be a serious conversation. Not a parade of horrors.


    Unrelated? Bullshit.

    "Self-pity is never an attractive quality, and in an elected head of state even less so. Obama whines that his opponents say it's all his fault. One can argue about whose fault it is, but not, as my colleagues at National Review pointed out, whose responsibility it is: It's his. He's the only president we have. And he made things worse. He increased the national debt by some 70 percent, and what do we have to show for it? No dams, no railroads, no moon shots. Just government, and bureaucracy, and regulation, unto national bankruptcy."

    And as for lending banks taking a lot of risk that they shouldn't have and the cause of that drop in wealth? Are you going to purposely ignore the regulations and policies that encouraged that risk taking and borrowing? These policies also preceded Bush - and the point isn't to say that Obama must now be responsible for all of it, but that Obama is responsible for making the recovery as miserable as it's been which has meant that not only has wealth not been recovered, but that trillions have been wasted in so called "stimulus" that only pushed out and temporarily alleviated fiscal realities.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:10 AM GMT
    Not better off. At all... You'll see most people won't know if they're better off or not. It's been so long since things have been screwed up, a lot of these folks are still unemployeed SINCE the new administration has been in.icon_neutral.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:12 AM GMT
    Do you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.


    Also feminist economics is concerned with a lot of things. Things like the double day. Women who are now the primary sex in the labor force have work a regular day, and then come home and do the caring labor even if they're in a two parent household. Things like that are ignored by traditional economics, but feminist economics acknowledges that unpaid work is still part of allocating scarce resources and therefore still economics. Traditional economics also might propose that all economic activity is good economic activity, but feminist economics looks at what people are buying and who's buying them. If for example a lot of people are investing a lot more money in home security that is not a good indicator of economic progress. Yes they're spending more money, but crime is tied directly to economic performance and feelings of economic performance of people. Neoclassical(traditional) economics doesn't care about any of that. If the word feminist scares you like it does a lot of people you can use the term "political economy." That's the term most universities (including my own) use for it, but it is feminist economics nonetheless.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jun 18, 2012 12:23 AM GMT
    Four years ago George W. Bush was still in office, and the country was in the depths of the depression his policies created. (The same policies Romney wants to return to, since his goal is tax cuts for the super-rich, not real progress for the country at large.)
    Obama's job-creation record is dramatically better than Bush's was. So yes, the country is far better off now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:36 AM GMT
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.

    Just a suggestion because you are new here. If you want to make a point, state assumptions or relevant facts, then apply logic to come to a sound conclusion. Or, if you want to criticize another's post, you can do that as well, but again, you should point to false assumptions and/or flawed reasoning. What you are doing, just raising questions and suggesting others learn more is quite unimpressive. Some here have experience and credentials substantially greater than yours. That doesn't mean you can't challenge them. But if you don't do it intelligently, you won't be taken seriously.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:36 AM GMT
    Yes! Yes! Yes!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:37 AM GMT
    KissTheSky saidFour years ago George W. Bush was still in office, and the country was in the depths of the depression his policies created. (The same policies Romney wants to return to, since his goal is tax cuts for the super-rich, not real progress for the country at large.)
    Obama's job-creation record is dramatically better than Bush's was. So yes, the country is far better off now.


    Obama's job creation record? Under the Obama Administration, to date, there's still be a net private job loss. So no, the US is definitely not "far better off now" - it's difficult how anyone could even characterize it as being better off. Do you work for the government or a government related institution?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:44 AM GMT
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.


    It sounds like you have a somewhat poor understanding of the banking let alone financial services industry. I am quite familiar with all of the above. And again, I point out that government institutions, regulations and incentives were at nearly every turn.

    SbStudent saidAlso feminist economics is concerned with a lot of things. Things like the double day. Women who are now the primary sex in the labor force have work a regular day, and then come home and do the caring labor even if they're in a two parent household. Things like that are ignored by traditional economics, but feminist economics acknowledges that unpaid work is still part of allocating scarce resources and therefore still economics. Traditional economics also might propose that all economic activity is good economic activity, but feminist economics looks at what people are buying and who's buying them. If for example a lot of people are investing a lot more money in home security that is not a good indicator of economic progress. Yes they're spending more money, but crime is tied directly to economic performance and feelings of economic performance of people. Neoclassical(traditional) economics doesn't care about any of that. If the word feminist scares you like it does a lot of people you can use the term "political economy." That's the term most universities (including my own) use for it, but it is feminist economics nonetheless.


    With all due respect, it sounds like you'll be one of the many who graduate after university with not only a poor grasp of economics but lamenting the lack of jobs.
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jun 18, 2012 12:48 AM GMT
    Statistics from the U.S. Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics show that Bush's average monthly job creation (private sector) was 86,000.
    Obama's average is 151,000. Not great, but obviously much better than Bush's.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:54 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.

    Just a suggestion because you are new here. If you want to make a point, state assumptions or relevant facts, then apply logic to come to a sound conclusion. Or, if you want to criticize another's post, you can do that as well, but again, you should point to false assumptions and/or flawed reasoning. What you are doing, just raising questions and suggesting others learn more is quite unimpressive. Some here have experience and credentials substantially greater than yours. That doesn't mean you can't challenge them. But if you don't do it intelligently, you won't be taken seriously.


    You're completely right. Many people here probably have much more credentials than I do. But when people make claims that americans loss in wealth is a direct result of the current presidents actions I can clearly see that they have very little understanding of public finance and economics. I apologize for being rude, but when people make arguments not based in fact and poor reasoning I assume that they do not know what the facts are. I was merely making a suggestion that they attempt to gain a greater understanding of the topic before they make rash and poorly formed judgement calls. I apologize for being rude and committing the fallacy of ad hominem. I trust that you can see however that my impoliteness has no bearing on my knowledge and reasoning ability. Since I am not the only impolite person here I will assume that this warning was just because I am new to all of this.

    All that being said, thank you for reminding me that civility is requirement for civil discourse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 12:59 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    SbStudent saidYou know that the decreased wealth and the job that the president is doing is pretty much unrelated. Hopefully you are aware of a few things. First, Wealth=Assets-debts pretty basic. Most americans hold wealth in their homes. Banks gave a whole lot of loans to a bunch of people who couldn't afford them. Houses foreclosed, bankruptcies happened, and people lost a lot of their wealth because they had a major loss in assets and major gains in debts.

    What does that have to do with the president???

    If you're going to have a conversation on the job that the president is doing then that's fair. But, let's be real here. Lending banks took a lot of risk they shouldn't have and that is the cause of Americans drop in wealth. I can't believe anyone would be so gullible as to think that the drop in american wealth is a direct result of the current president. If McCain had been president guess what there would have still been a huge drop in American wealth because even with perfect fiscal policy(whatever that may be) americans would still have lost their homes!

    You could have a discussion on how the drop in wealth can be attributed to previous congresses or presidential administrations or even RATINGS AGENCIES!!!! or whatever because there was a failure on all levels to make sure that if banks were creating money to give to people it wasn't just anyone out there who could sign their name.

    That would be a serious conversation. Not a parade of horrors.


    Unrelated? Bullshit.

    "Self-pity is never an attractive quality, and in an elected head of state even less so. Obama whines that his opponents say it's all his fault. One can argue about whose fault it is, but not, as my colleagues at National Review pointed out, whose responsibility it is: It's his. He's the only president we have. And he made things worse. He increased the national debt by some 70 percent, and what do we have to show for it? No dams, no railroads, no moon shots. Just government, and bureaucracy, and regulation, unto national bankruptcy."

    And as for lending banks taking a lot of risk that they shouldn't have and the cause of that drop in wealth? Are you going to purposely ignore the regulations and policies that encouraged that risk taking and borrowing? These policies also preceded Bush - and the point isn't to say that Obama must now be responsible for all of it, but that Obama is responsible for making the recovery as miserable as it's been which has meant that not only has wealth not been recovered, but that trillions have been wasted in so called "stimulus" that only pushed out and temporarily alleviated fiscal realities.


    And the Bush administration did try for some moderate restrictions and oversight for Fannie and Freddie that was vehemently opposed by certain factions in congress with BJ Barnie being one of them

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

    "
    New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

    By STEPHEN LABATON
    Published: September 11, 2003


    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

    ''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

    Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

    The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

    The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

    After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

    ''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

    ''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

    The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

    At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

    Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

    After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:06 AM GMT
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.



    Or better yet, in fact much better, get out in the REAL world and work with some of this for 35 or 40 years and then talk, instead of spewing from your left wing professors who likely also have never worked in the real world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:06 AM GMT
    SbStudent said
    socalfitness said
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.

    Just a suggestion because you are new here. If you want to make a point, state assumptions or relevant facts, then apply logic to come to a sound conclusion. Or, if you want to criticize another's post, you can do that as well, but again, you should point to false assumptions and/or flawed reasoning. What you are doing, just raising questions and suggesting others learn more is quite unimpressive. Some here have experience and credentials substantially greater than yours. That doesn't mean you can't challenge them. But if you don't do it intelligently, you won't be taken seriously.

    You're completely right. Many people here probably have much more credentials than I do. But when people make claims that americans loss in wealth is a direct result of the current presidents actions I can clearly see that they have very little understanding of public finance and economics. I apologize for being rude, but when people make arguments not based in fact and poor reasoning I assume that they do not know what the facts are. I was merely making a suggestion that they attempt to gain a greater understanding of the topic before they make rash and poorly formed judgement calls. I apologize for being rude and committing the fallacy of ad hominem. I trust that you can see however that my impoliteness has no bearing on my knowledge and reasoning ability. Since I am not the only impolite person here I will assume that this warning was just because I am new to all of this.

    All that being said, thank you for reminding me that one civility is requirement for civil discourse.

    I appreciate your response. It is always easy to jump in with the ad hominem. I am not immune from doing that, but it is usually in response or when someone seems stubborn.

    Just to point out a couple of things. Your critique is applied not only to Riddler for posting the article, but to Mark Steyn, the columnist. If you look at his credentials, they are substantial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn .That does not mean he can't be criticized. There are experts with excellent credentials who criticize him. I think it is good to be careful about suggesting those you don't agree with lack a basic lack of understanding of facts or disciplines. And not just for reasons of politeness, but because it is often not the case. The other point is you will find Riddler to extremely smart and knowledgeable. I think he would be willing to have friendly discussions or debates if you are as well. Again, welcome to the forums and thanks for your reply.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:07 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Obama's job creation record? Under the Obama Administration, to date, there's still be a net private job loss.


    Actually, that is not true.

    fredgraph.png?&id=CEU0500000001&scale=Le
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:13 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.


    It sounds like you have a somewhat poor understanding of the banking let alone financial services industry. I am quite familiar with all of the above. And again, I point out that government institutions, regulations and incentives were at nearly every turn.

    SbStudent saidAlso feminist economics is concerned with a lot of things. Things like the double day. Women who are now the primary sex in the labor force have work a regular day, and then come home and do the caring labor even if they're in a two parent household. Things like that are ignored by traditional economics, but feminist economics acknowledges that unpaid work is still part of allocating scarce resources and therefore still economics. Traditional economics also might propose that all economic activity is good economic activity, but feminist economics looks at what people are buying and who's buying them. If for example a lot of people are investing a lot more money in home security that is not a good indicator of economic progress. Yes they're spending more money, but crime is tied directly to economic performance and feelings of economic performance of people. Neoclassical(traditional) economics doesn't care about any of that. If the word feminist scares you like it does a lot of people you can use the term "political economy." That's the term most universities (including my own) use for it, but it is feminist economics nonetheless.


    With all due respect, it sounds like you'll be one of the many who graduate after university with not only a poor grasp of economics but lamenting the lack of jobs.


    I'll probably be graduating with a fabulous grasp on economics and economic policy. I'll probably be on the deans list(unless I for some reason start failing everything) and then going on to another university to get a graduate degree and then I'll probably go on to work for the devil government. Also let's be real here you can't really understand my grasp of macroeconomics and public finance because i haven't really said anything about it. You however profess being quite familiar with it yet say things that aren't actually supported by macroeconomic theory. You also say things that don't really make a lot of sense when it comes to public finance. I apologize for being rude here, but you do know that it is only congress who can do things when it comes to fiscal policy. The president traditionally proposes things like a budget because it's easier for congress to not have to create one themselves (Most of the times the presidents admin will just alter last years), but the president has very little real power over taxing and spending. Something that is extremely central to what you are talking about. I just don't quite get it. You might want to blame the house of representatives or the senate but it can't really be the president you see because the presidents job is to do what congress says. His administration administers the laws put forth by congress. Did you know any of that? You should have learned it in civics in 12th grade or maybe before then... But i guess I must've graduated with a poor understanding of civics as well, and therefore I must be wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    I propose be mad at congress!!! It can clearly be seen that they are not doing the job they need to! Maybe we all have the wrong targets!!! Romney, Obama, Bush! Congress is really the problem!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    What you have to ask is, would we have been better off following the failed policies of the republican leadership from Bush, Reagan, McCain and now Romney? The answer is almost always NO. So, looking forward, even if you grant that Obama is not doing well, is, would we do better now with those same failed policies of the republicans if we elect yet another republican promising to lower the wealthiest's taxes while promising jobs that never show up?
    I doubt it.
    What Obama should be doing is running against a congress that does everything in their power to fight any jobs plan he throws out to them. Then he might make sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:18 AM GMT
    SbStudent saidI propose be mad at congress!!! It can clearly be seen that they are not doing the job they need to! Maybe we all have the wrong targets!!! Romney, Obama, Bush! Congress is really the problem!


    And elected in 2006 was?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:19 AM GMT
    smartmoney saidWhat you have to ask is, would we have been better off following the failed policies of the republican leadership from Bush, Reagan, McCain and now Romney? The answer is almost always NO. So, looking forward, even if you grant that Obama is not doing well, is, would we do better now with those same failed policies of the republicans if we elect yet another republican promising to lower the wealthiest's taxes while promising jobs that never show up?
    I doubt it.
    What Obama should be doing is running against a congress that does everything in their power to fight any jobs plan he throws out to them. Then he might make sense.


    So the senate is part of that legislative branch you speak of?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:19 AM GMT
    SbStudent saidThe president traditionally proposes things like a budget because it's easier for congress to not have to create one themselves (Most of the times the presidents admin will just alter last years), but the president has very little real power over taxing and spending. ...

    The President can exert significant influence on Congress, especially when his party is in a leadership position in either house.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:28 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    SbStudent saidThe president traditionally proposes things like a budget because it's easier for congress to not have to create one themselves (Most of the times the presidents admin will just alter last years), but the president has very little real power over taxing and spending. ...

    The President can exert significant influence on Congress, especially when his party is in a leadership position in either house.

    This
    Pretending like a president does not have any influence is silly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:31 AM GMT
    SbStudent said
    riddler78 said
    SbStudent saidDo you even know how the banking industry works??? Do you know the process by which a bank creates a loan? Do you even know what the job of the federal reserve is in granting loans? Do you know what a mortgage backed security is and how they relate to government investment? Do you know what the job of a ratings agency is and how they fit into to the current economic crisis? I mean if you knew the answer to any of these you would see how ridiculous that article was. Maybe you should take a class in macroeconomics and then in public finance and then another class in Banking and then maybe you can talk about economic issues like you know something.


    It sounds like you have a somewhat poor understanding of the banking let alone financial services industry. I am quite familiar with all of the above. And again, I point out that government institutions, regulations and incentives were at nearly every turn.

    SbStudent saidAlso feminist economics is concerned with a lot of things. Things like the double day. Women who are now the primary sex in the labor force have work a regular day, and then come home and do the caring labor even if they're in a two parent household. Things like that are ignored by traditional economics, but feminist economics acknowledges that unpaid work is still part of allocating scarce resources and therefore still economics. Traditional economics also might propose that all economic activity is good economic activity, but feminist economics looks at what people are buying and who's buying them. If for example a lot of people are investing a lot more money in home security that is not a good indicator of economic progress. Yes they're spending more money, but crime is tied directly to economic performance and feelings of economic performance of people. Neoclassical(traditional) economics doesn't care about any of that. If the word feminist scares you like it does a lot of people you can use the term "political economy." That's the term most universities (including my own) use for it, but it is feminist economics nonetheless.


    With all due respect, it sounds like you'll be one of the many who graduate after university with not only a poor grasp of economics but lamenting the lack of jobs.


    I'll probably be graduating with a fabulous grasp on economics and economic policy. I'll probably be on the deans list(unless I for some reason start failing everything) and then going on to another university to get a graduate degree and then I'll probably go on to work for the devil government. Also let's be real here you can't really understand my grasp of macroeconomics and public finance because i haven't really said anything about it. You however profess being quite familiar with it yet say things that aren't actually supported by macroeconomic theory. You also say things that don't really make a lot of sense when it comes to public finance. I apologize for being rude here, but you do know that it is only congress who can do things when it comes to fiscal policy. The president traditionally proposes things like a budget because it's easier for congress to not have to create one themselves (Most of the times the presidents admin will just alter last years), but the president has very little real power over taxing and spending. Something that is extremely central to what you are talking about. I just don't quite get it. You might want to blame the house of representatives or the senate but it can't really be the president you see because the presidents job is to do what congress says. His administration administers the laws put forth by congress. Did you know any of that? You should have learned it in civics in 12th grade or maybe before then... But i guess I must've graduated with a poor understanding of civics as well, and therefore I must be wrong.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




    SBStudent:

    its so good to read your very inteligent and learned posts !!! WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU TO COME FORWARD !!!! I like how you break down and take out the partisan bull from the reality of our Presidents delima in dealing with the our economic problems which depths are impossible to dig out of quickly even under good and cooperative governing situations let alone the Party of no blocking everything they possibly could to complicate any hope of an economic recover.

    Thumbs up to you young man, you've stymied these partisan members, leaving them rather defenseless.. I hope you do get in government work because our government desperately needs inteligence like yours rather than those who are only there for partisan purposes. Good luck to you and PLEASE KEEP POSTING !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2012 1:38 AM GMT
    As to the question posed by this topic, Personally I am at a comfortable level in retirement from a local government position, so no complaints.

    As for the country, we are definately better off than we were under bush, and were it not for the Party of no's extreme right turn toward intransigence and no compromise, our country would have been much better off.

    Where we are today under Obama with its improvements are in spite of the party of no, not because of them.