vincentML
Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
I respect that you hate labeling, Merc, but a little history reminder is in order. The Federal Budget was balanced in 2000 when W became president. Massive tax cuts to stimulate the supply side were voted in by the Congress along with a medical entitlement and a war that was not budgeted.
quote:
As I respect your take on the issue. However shouldn't the question be posed to the Administration and not me? Wasn't that "history" obvious to Obama and his people when he took power?
Yes, it was, Merc,and Obama referred to it in a number of speeches before he was elected and afterwards. What is your point?
quote:
I challenge you to point to a time when there was "unregulated capitalism". There were always regulations, and they were always compromised. Being the skeptic that I am, I say the compromised loopholes were deliberately included in the regulations. Where you lose me is the pointed fingers at one political party or one administration. I believe there were 8 years between Reagan and Bush and much of the 'Clinton-Boon' was a result of regulation loopholes as well as entitlement programs dovetailing into those regulations such as the Barney Frank "everyone should own a house" regulatory change while he was in charge of 'Fanny' & 'Freddie'.
I've always represented that smart folk work for the government to establish regulations and laws; while the smartest people are employed in the private sector figuring out ways to exploit them before the ink is dry on the Presidential signature.
Yes, there have always been regulations. I will amend my definition to "relatively unregulated capitalism." There should be no doubt that with the exception perhaps of the Era of the railroad and oil barons following the Civil War and prior to T. Roosevelt, and then again in post WW I, that American Capitalism has never known such an unfettered Era as transpired from Reagan to GW Bush and including Clinton. The housing and bank deregulations came very late in the Clinton years and he is certainly culpable.
My main point remains the same. When given the chance of greatly loosened reins Capitalism blew it. The recent troubles are the result of a collapsed housing boom and a credit freeze that resulted from it and from the huge unregulated markets in mortgaged backed securities and credit default swaps. The arrow of blame goes directly to the Fed and the SEC as well as Wall Street doing what Wall Street does when let loose.
quote:
articles like this try to switch the blame to public employees, pensioners, and the unemployed.
quote:
"Blame"? No. Reality, and a use of grouping that I don't infer from the article. Negotiated pensions, SS payouts, and even unemployment (except for the ongoing extension now at 99 weeks and counting!), should not be grouped with "public employees".
They are employees of a struggling business, in this case a cash strapped government. Why should they be sacrosanct to the same cuts being felt by the growing private sector unemployed? You talk about "unregulated capitalism", what label would you apply to a business entity who in the face of massive losses doesn't reduce payroll and instead goes on a hiring and spending spree? I'd use irresponsible.
You know of course that the reason for the actions taken in TARP and in the Stimulous Bill were actions derived out of Keynesian Economic Theory that the Govt is the spender of last resort in an economic crisis and the actions were taken to ward off a presumed Depression. Seems to have worked so far. Part of the Stimulous Package went to save jobs of Municipal employees such as teachers, firemen, and policemen. So, aside from the services they rendered it would have been counter productive to the urgency of the moment to throw these people out onto the Unemployment roles. It may seem unfair to you looking at it from the view of a small business owner, but it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
As to Social Security recipients.... in 2008 the so-called Social Security Trust Fund held $2.2 T in U.S. Treasury Securities. The Trust fund was not bankrupt. The reason why it had those Treasury Notes is because they were i.o.u.s given by the successive govts when it took the Soc Sec receipts and used them elswhere. So, I hardly see why you have a hardon for retired folk when it is their money that has been used for operating funds by the Govt.
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
Ya think Reagan or W had a plan? Fucking stunning notion.
quote:
The US and the economy as it is now compares to what it was during the Reagan Administration? "Fucking stunning notion."
The US economy fell into a similar situation after the Reagan tax cuts were passed by Congress. 1981-1982 was not a splendid year.
quote:
Or perhaps since you do compare it to Reagan - you are in favor of Obama following the Reagan play book in this case as he followed another Republican example by signing off on the Bush II 'Stimulus Program'. Better be careful with your label representations - next thing you know Obama will be running for reelection under a Republican banner! After all - as you point out - he's only doing what Reagan and Bush did. But then - how do you rationalize for the 'CHANGE!' mantra?
Really, you think Reagan/Bush had any plan to recover from the budget deficit? As for Obama, in the exigencies of the time would you have been more comfortable if he had followed the Herbert Hoover plan? Easy to Monday morning quaterback it, Merc.
< Message edited by vincentML -- 5/25/2010 1:56:27 PM >
_____________________________
vML
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. ~ MLK Jr.
|
RE: Marxist Victory - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread