Obama 2012-Are You Better Off Than Four Years Ago?

[delldude]

Since when is the Wall Street Journal liberal? :wacko:

The Journal's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters. "A Measure of Media Bias", a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri, stated that:
“ One surprise is The Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of The Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal", notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is", Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized."

 

[Ms Tree]

The economy was a turd regardless of who was going to be in power. The republicans get a free pass because they did not have to make the decision of whether or not to let several banks and other companies go under or to rescue them. There was only one decision and Obama made it. The right is bitching and moaning about the unemployment rate ignoring that had the banks and car manufacturers gone under it would have been worse. Bush and Congress bailed out the banks and the same would have happened down line had he been in office.

The reality is that it will take time to dig our way out. The idea that we can just cut spending and not deal with the revenue side is just ignorance on the voters side and pandering on the political side.

 

[SparrowHawk]

The economy was a turd regardless of who was going to be in power. The republicans get a free pass because they did not have to make the decision of whether or not to let several banks and other companies go under or to rescue them. There was only one decision and Obama made it. The right is bitching and moaning about the unemployment rate ignoring that had the banks and car manufacturers gone under it would have been worse. Bush and Congress bailed out the banks and the same would have happened down line had he been in office.

The reality is that it will take time to dig our way out. The idea that we can just cut spending and not deal with the revenue side is just ignorance on the voters side and pandering on the political side.

I posted this elsewhere. Read this and learn

 

[delldude]

The economy was a turd regardless of who was going to be in power. The republicans get a free pass because they did not have to make the decision of whether or not to let several banks and other companies go under or to rescue them. There was only one decision and Obama made it. The right is bitching and moaning about the unemployment rate ignoring that had the banks and car manufacturers gone under it would have been worse. Bush and Congress bailed out the banks and the same would have happened down line had he been in office.

The reality is that it will take time to dig our way out. The idea that we can just cut spending and not deal with the revenue side is just ignorance on the voters side and pandering on the political side.

You and your turd are correct. Only one thing, it wasn't Bush or Obama but a conglomeration of a few past administrations and policies over some 50 or more years that got us to this point....but no, its too easy to blame Bush.

However, Obama hasn't done squat with the cards dealt to him and he and his administration must go.

 

[dapoes]

I posted this elsewhere. Read this and learn

And speaking of which, Sweden had a very similar crisis back in the 1990's. However they did exactly the opposite what Obama did. They took the hard pain up front and within a few years they bounced back better then ever.

Stopping a Financial Crisis, the Swedish Way

A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?

It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 — after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom — that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.

But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.

10 of the World’s Most Dramatic Financial Crises, and Their Lessons

Cause: In 1985, Sweden deregulated its credit market, leading to a commercial property speculation bubble. Between 1990-94, the bubble burst, leaving 90% of the banking sector with massive losses, including all of Sweden’s largest banks.
Action: The government bailed out banks that looked like they could eventually survive the crisis, nationalizing two of them. It also extended a guarantee to those banks’ creditors, which kept consumer confidence up.
It let the banks destroyed by the crisis fail. Though the government took on bad assets worth about $9.9 billion, it was eventually able to recoup the losses through dividends and reselling assets from the nationalized banks. Stockholders were left empty-handed, but taxpayers didn’t have to foot the bailout bill.

Hear that, United States?

Moral of the story: Don’t save stockholders if you can save taxpayers. Investors, who take calculated risks by investing in the stock market, are in a position to bear losses with partial responsibility. Taxpayers, meanwhile, should not be punished for someone else’s oversights.

The U.S. Financial Crisis: Lessons From Sweden

First, transparency of the process is important. In Sweden, expected losses were recognized early on and helped to preserve the confidence of the market.

Second, the process seems to work best with a politically and financially independent agency. This type of structure shields decision makers from political pressures, especially as banks are closed and assets are liquidated. Financial independence of the agency gives credibility to the notion of political independence. In addition, financial independence allows for a rapid response when funding needs emerge suddenly and waiting for a government appropriation is impractical.

Third, is the importance of maintenance of market discipline and
avoiding blanket guarantees.

So their solution to pull themselves away from the progressive curse? Free market principles, capitalism and tax cuts!

Oh the horror!

 

[SparrowHawk]

So their solution to pull themselves away from the progressive curse? Free market principles, capitalism and tax cuts!

Oh the horror!

NEVER allow facts historical or otherwise to get in the way of the feel good now, pay later approach to the Progressive. Imagine Cuba with lower taxes than we do. Who woulda thunk it?

 

[Ms Tree]

NEVER allow facts historical or otherwise to get in the way of the feel good now, pay later approach to the Progressive. Imagine Cuba with lower taxes than we do. Who woulda thunk it?

Cuba? You're comparing Cuba to the US? Why don't you toss in N Korea and Somalia while you are at it?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Cuba? You're comparing Cuba to the US? Why don't you toss in N Korea and Somalia while you are at it?

Talking taxes here not fundamental Liberties.

It;s kind of like the TV show "Are you smarter then a Fifth Grader" only for Obama the question is "Are you smarter then a Communist Dictator?" The link to this is in another post but since it speaks about Cuba and to me it SCREAMS, given the fact that the standard of living there is third world at best.

One of the trademark features of Cuba’s socialist system — the universal monthly food ration — will be phased out. Castro said the ration given all Cubans since 1963 has become an "unsupportable burden" for Cuba’s bankrupt and crumbling government.

Wow! A Cuban communist leader is cutting a million government jobs, and eliminating Cuba’s version of food stamps. So, why is Obama desperately trying to raise taxes to socialist levels to keep our 21 million government employees all employed (with their bloated pensions) and maintain 45 million Americans on food stamps? Perhaps Castro can give Obama a few pointers.

 

[Ms Tree]

I know that. I'm talking economies, not liberties. Just happens that the countries I mentioned have neither.

tax rates by nation

 

[SparrowHawk]

Anything OVER 20% means the citizens of that country are over taxed.

 

[Ms Tree]

No it does not. It depends what they are getting in return for that tax. We are not over taxed, we just are not getting our monies worth.

 

[Ms Tree]

Look at the transportation systems, education, medical care, care for the elderly ... If you are getting a good return on your investment then the taxes are not to high. You can pay a little out over time on the front end or pay more more at the back end.

 

[dapoes]

This chart kind of says it all:

 

[Ms Tree]

Only one thing, it wasn't Bush or Obama but a conglomeration of a few past administrations and policies over some 50 or more years that got us to this point.

That is the point I have been trying to make for quite some time here. There are bits and pieces that can be attributed to an individual president but the we have been on this path for quite some time. It takes a lot of people and a long time to screw up a country this bad. It is also going to take a lot of people and a long time to fix it.

 

[SparrowHawk]

That is the point I have been trying to make for quite some time here. There are bits and pieces that can be attributed to an individual president but the we have been on this path for quite some time. It takes a lot of people and a long time to screw up a country this bad. It is also going to take a lot of people and a long time to fix it.

Well Ms Tree how many times have I said "If you want to establish the real blame you have to back to 1913 and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, The Federal Income Tax under Woodrow Wilson which was the beginning of the failures of today." In this regard Barack Obama got the sh*tty end of the stick. IMO he has failed to take the required steps to return us to prosperity and that coupled with a level of arrogance that to me is so condescending to be beyond description is the primary reason I've less than no use for him. I sincerely doubt if he walked up to me and introduced himself that would shake his hand. That's where I'm at with him. It would be a tough call with Bush Jr as well, who as afar as I'm concerned is a whore for the East Coast Republican Elite.

The Lady I work for at the Music Festival who is self described in her words as a "Flaming Limousine Liberal" actually agrees with me and she lives and breathes this stuff everyday. I recall one of our alcohol fueled debates and my end line to her was, "I AGREE with you that as a society that we should do everything you're advocating, we just disagree on who pays for it. You say Government, I say no to that". She looked at me grinning and said "YOU, are such a f*cking Libertarian" I smiled at her as we hugged and replied "I think that's the nicest thing you ever said to me." Festival is next week I wonder what she will have to say about Ron Paul?