|
Mercnbeth -> RE: Marxist Victory (5/25/2010 3:13:27 PM)
|
quote:
Yes, it was, Merc,and Obama referred to it in a number of speeches before he was elected and afterwards. What is your point? The point was in consideration of all that history why are the projections so far off and why, as you point out, isn't, or wasn't, balancing the budget the first on the agenda? When someone throws a punch at you, you don't lean into it with more force hoping for a better outcome. Yet instead of cutbacks or even freezing spending another $800 Billion in 'stimulus' was spent. Government spending "history" points to it being counter productive - the point is why was doing the same thing expecting a different result?
quote:
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.
Must not be so easy. Nothing you posted indicted that the President is doing anything different than what was done in the past, and it is long past Monday. If he really wanted a Reagan or Bush Presidency he should have checked his resources. Unlike Reagan he has a two front war already going - Reagan 'rescued' med students to generate 'political capital'. Reagan and Bush also had in common a 'Prime Rate' with room to maneuver down - also NOT in the goodies bag waiting for Obama when he took office.
He may have had the same game plan and run the same plays as those two before him but the field conditions were different, and to date - he hasn't shown any ability to adjust; although many of his supporters have done so. As a result you see people rationalizing acceptance for the same actions they used to condemn under Reagan and Bush. The ongoing support of the wars is particularly telling.
I take it you are saying we shouldn't expect a different outcome, while the same game-plan is being run. I'd agree and it's been my position for a long time that the only difference between the two political parties in the US is the color of their table linen.
There is, or at least was, another option other than Hoover. Cuts and freeze spending upon arrival at the White House. Run the Health Care option after putting the economy on a firm path of turn around. I wonder how much of the lack of business growth and hiring is due to the general state of the economy and how much is directed to trying to figure out the impact of the Health Care on businesses? I know that many of the big companies allocated huge reserves as a direct result. It's no longer reported in the financial news but I'm sure it's still be discussed and business plans are being implemented based upon the regulatory and financial impact.
quote:
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. A bit off topic but necessary as a consideration for either the perspective of this being a result of Capitalism failure or lack of bureaucratic oversight. It was neither but at the same time it was both.
Behind every loan program there are hedges of insurance protection based upon actuarial tables. As they do in Vegas - Run the 'game' long enough - the 'house' wins. The 'house' in lending is insurance. In the middle of the game - the rules were changes. The financial institutions were pressured (some insiders would say required, still others would say 'extorted'.) into changing their lending guidelines to let in more people to the home ownership 'party'. There was increased demand - appraised value jumped; and short term 'universal' happiness ensued. However the fundamental actuarial tables didn't account for this government intervention. As a result it was like a casino taking the '0' and '00' off the roulette table and keeping the payouts the same.
More 'good intent', more happy Banker executives making bonus plans used to fund PACs, more happy constituents in bigger houses; what could go wrong?
Truth is there is no cooperation between business and government which may be the heart of the problem. Look no further than the adversarial tone of every business brought into Washington from the auto manufactures, to bankers, to oil executives. There isn't a goal to correct the problem. The goal is to blame - stimulate the constituency and get them to believe that they ARE doing something! Well - how's that working for either side, let alone the last consideration for collateral damage, the average US citizen?
I know that with every bill and regulation contemplated by Washington businesses often spend more money trying to avoid the consequence then they would incur in tax and/or fee. Contributory is the true 'global opportunity' to outsource and relocate key assets outside the US with little or no consequence. I sit on one board of a small company (<500 employees) who will relocate their servicing center to the Philippines in 2011 instead of being subject to the trends coming out of the Obama Administration. The backbreaking 'straw' happened to be Health Care - which is ironic because they are in the insurance business and provide 'free' health-care to all employees. The 'shell' will be in the US - but the revenue stream, productivity, and employment is moving off shore.
When the ultimate vote to move came up the CEO went around the table and asked each member to make an argument FOR staying in the face of an adversarial Government regulatory conditions. The business is located in CA so his consideration was not only nationally, but State and local as well. Not a public company, I doubt it will rise to the level of a newspaper story in LA, but trusting your integrity what argument, outside of some false sense of one-sided patriotism, would you provide for staying? Even in that regard - if its the 'duty' for American business to put America first shouldn't be incumbent upon the American government to have the same attitude with American business?
Why shouldn't the present business environment in the US be represented as 'adversarial' to business?
Is it all President Obama's fault? No - but he's in charge. As you stipulate - he did represent he knew the condition of the job when he took it on. Sixteen months have passed and the best review for any of his implemented policies has been; "It could have been worse!" Think that will be and effective campaign slogan for 2012?
|
|
|
|
