26 Jul 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I thought Obama and the DNC fixed the problem after the credit crisis.
Your corrupt bankers and your unwillingness to introduce any kind of financial reform has cost your economy trillions of dollars. No president could have robbed your country of as much as these criminals even if they tried.
Don't tell me that Obama and the DNC is either complicit or incompetent.
27 Jul 14
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThe problem was unsustainable private debt. Banks were not solvent because they had loaned vast sums to people unlikely ever to repay them, then concealed bad debts in complex financial bundles like the English chicken industry does with campylobacter.
But I thought Obama and the DNC fixed the problem after the credit crisis.
Don't tell me that Obama and the DNC is either complicit or incompetent.
Giving the banks more money for their reserves meant that, despite vast amounts of worthless debt on their books, they were solvent again. In theory, they could then return to lending people money that will never be repaid. That did not happen because nobody wanted their loans. Corporations were rich in cash and did not need loans - they needed solvent customers.
Nothing was done for the people in debt. The economy crashed because consumers no longer felt able to fund their lives with additional debt. Their ability to pay was reducing with the failure of incomes to share any of the benefits of growth since Reagan and Thatcher.
To some extent the only means by which the overhanging private sector debt levels can be reduced will be inflation but that assumes incomes rise with inflation and it is not happening (outside the top 10% ). Partly this is because the unions that protected worker incomes in the Seventies have been disempowered by the New Right legislation of the Eighties. Workers without union protection cannot negotiate fair conditions any more.
The destruction of demand in the economy is exacerbated by resulting declines in tax revenues, over and above the refusal of corporations and the wealthy to take their share of the tax burden. Public sector austerity is harmful in a time of recession.
To a degree, Obama has contributed some impetus to the real economy, for example by rescuing the major car manufacturers. That helps explain America's gradual emergence from recession, compared with the UK which has struggled for longer. But so far as he has put his trust in the very neoclassical economics and economists responsible for this mess, he is not going anywhere very fast. The economic benefits promised by Bernanke (of the 'Great Moderation' ) and company from QE have simply not been realized. Obama has been made into a fool by his reliance on conservative economists.
27 Jul 14
Originally posted by Eladar2003 is still only 2 years in the bush administration. so are you saying what a good job clinton did?
[b]The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html?_r=0
This is Obama's dream! Keep Americans poor ...[text shortened]... ot all?
Bringing in large number of 3rd world citizens is only going to make things better![/b]
27 Jul 14
Originally posted by EladarObama only contributed to the problem. Bill Clinton opened the trade doors wide open with China so he deserves as much blame as every subsequent president. Most of the income gap can be blamed on trade with China.
[b]The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html?_r=0
This is Obama's dream! Keep Americans poor ...[text shortened]... ot all?
Bringing in large number of 3rd world citizens is only going to make things better![/b]
27 Jul 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainYes, and Louisiana is relatively poor because it has a free trade agreement with Massachusetts.
Obama only contributed to the problem. Bill Clinton opened the trade doors wide open with China so he deserves as much blame as every subsequent president. Most of the income gap can be blamed on trade with China.
27 Jul 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt seems to me that most of the income gap can be blamed on many domestic policies:
Obama only contributed to the problem. Bill Clinton opened the trade doors wide open with China so he deserves as much blame as every subsequent president. Most of the income gap can be blamed on trade with China.
Increased illegals driving down the cost for labor
Increased taxation brought on by Obamacare
Increased costs loaded on energy due government regulations and taxes
With fewer and fewer people working, of course people are getting poorer. Yes you can survive in government checks, but you will be poor.
27 Jul 14
Originally posted by EladarIt seems to me...
It seems to me that most of the income gap can be blamed on many domestic policies:
Increased illegals driving down the cost for labor
Increased taxation brought on by Obamacare
Increased costs loaded on energy due government regulations and taxes
With fewer and fewer people working, of course people are getting poorer. Yes you can survive in government checks, but you will be poor.
Might you be able to provide any justification, argument or evidence?
28 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really do like to make stupid comparisons. This is almost as stupid as your comparing labeling GMO foods to labeling foods processed by black people. One has nothing to do with the other except in your own mind. You really have a problem with reality. Are you really that adept at fooling yourself into thinking these comparisons make any sense at all?
Yes, and Louisiana is relatively poor because it has a free trade agreement with Massachusetts.
28 Jul 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainIts termed hyperbole
You really do like to make stupid comparisons. This is almost as stupid as your comparing labeling GMO foods to labeling foods processed by black people. One has nothing to do with the other except in your own mind. You really have a problem with reality. Are you really that adept at fooling yourself into thinking these comparisons make any sense at all?
28 Jul 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe comparison is "stupid" only up to the extent that the argument is.
You really do like to make stupid comparisons. This is almost as stupid as your comparing labeling GMO foods to labeling foods processed by black people. One has nothing to do with the other except in your own mind. You really have a problem with reality. Are you really that adept at fooling yourself into thinking these comparisons make any sense at all?