U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2012, 11:04 PM
 
2,032 posts, read 2,190,114 times
Reputation: 1632
Erskine Bowles, anyone remember him? Chief of staff for President Clinton. Here's what he said on 8 September 2011 about Paul Ryan:

"I'm telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was OK with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me," Bowles tells a class of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did by four trillion dollars."



And then, this is what Bowles said about Obama:

"The president came out with his own plan. And the president, as you remember, came out with a budget. And I don't think anybody took that budget very seriously," Bowles continues.

"The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework. And in that budget framework, he cuts the budget by four trillion dollars over twelve years. And, to be candid, this four trillion dollars cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, that if you looked at it on a ten-year basis and compared apples to apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut."

Poor Obama. Kind of hard to hide from his own record.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2012, 01:15 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
2,825 posts, read 3,239,812 times
Reputation: 2610
Obama or any president would have inherited a nightmare.

-Basically 35 years of loose FED policy (going back to the gold standard in the early 70's). What has the money supply growth been since 1972 or 73? Must be staggering.

-The country has run trade deficits I think since 1975. The "surplus" in the 90's was about as real as an Enron surplus.

The country finances have all been pretty much a shell game for the last 20 or 30 years. Not much different than one of those guys in New York city hiding a ball under cup. Put a little social security money here. Put a little of this here. The countrys book keeping would make a regular, honest accountant blush.

Obama was like a card player getting to a poker table after about 8 guys are there. All he got were a handful of chips and a few cigarette butts.

-The two parties have basically been hopeless against the rise of China, India. Look at chinas trade in the last 20 years. They're basically using a pea shooter when they try to "axe" waste, i.e. the cuts at NASA.

We've been in a game of printing money for so long, we don't know what real spending reductions are. Somebody in another 4, 8, 10 years is really going to be left holding the bag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Thornville, Ohio
75 posts, read 57,024 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
I see. So, how many years does Obama have to be president before any of it becomes his responsibility? Forever?

This. Funny how Bush couldn't sneeze without being vilified, but Obama gets a pass for pretty much everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2012, 10:23 AM
 
4,750 posts, read 3,427,668 times
Reputation: 1713
Quote:
Originally Posted by John23 View Post
Obama or any president would have inherited a nightmare.

-Basically 35 years of loose FED policy (going back to the gold standard in the early 70's). What has the money supply growth been since 1972 or 73? Must be staggering.
This pretty much explains it although the Iraq war and bank bailouts were un-necessary and amplified the existing problem. Unfortunately voters' tendencies are to blame incumbents to "make a statement" and presume that things will work out quickly and painlessly just because they had done so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2012, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
7,424 posts, read 4,607,348 times
Reputation: 5414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
Erskine Bowles, anyone remember him? Chief of staff for President Clinton. Here's what he said on 8 September 2011 about Paul Ryan:

"I'm telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was OK with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me," Bowles tells a class of students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
"He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did by four trillion dollars."



And then, this is what Bowles said about Obama:

"The president came out with his own plan. And the president, as you remember, came out with a budget. And I don't think anybody took that budget very seriously," Bowles continues.

"The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework. And in that budget framework, he cuts the budget by four trillion dollars over twelve years. And, to be candid, this four trillion dollars cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, that if you looked at it on a ten-year basis and compared apples to apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut."

Poor Obama. Kind of hard to hide from his own record.
Paul Ryan is basically one of a damn few that has the know-how and chaps to actually address the fiscal problems. Bush certainly didn't. He bailed out the banks after they stopped being banks when Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall. The problem is it's talk. If you look at Ryan's actual voting record, however, the reality is far different. He's pro-bailout, pro-imperialism, pro-increasing social security and medicare. He's even worse than a good Bush-spender GOP lapdog. He broke party ranks a voted to socialize the auto industry. In 2008 he stood up and addressed Congress and said he was voting against his principles and for TARP. Do we need a wish-washy who votes against his principles or someone who stands up for them? I mean, he's VP which is a powerless, and I do think he'd make a good adviser. He's obviously very knowledgeable on fiscal matters, but in looking at his voting record it demonstrates that he's too weak to be an effective leader. He's still pretty young and maybe learned from his mistakes in voting for the bailouts, for the biggest expansion of medicare, for socialism. That remains to be seen. Those were difficult times, so it is understandable that he may have let fear get the better of him. His vote against round two of TARP was a step in the right direction. I'm not one to criticism him for being a Kerry flip-flopper. Not learning from and refusing to admit your mistakes is a characteristic I do not value... but it is a characteristic that many GOP voters and pundits do require. With the GOP hardliners his flip-flopping presents an issue, with the Tea Party component his spendthrift track record is an issue. I doubt the GOP hardliners will bring it up. They hate Obama so much they'd much rather stay mum and be hypocrites than be objectives. If this were a primary, he wouldn't get the pass on it but since attacking your ticket isn't pragmatic, he will. The Tea Party is more a concern for Romney as they will vote a third party candidate to make a statement.

Anyway, while nice to get such a ringing endorsement from a former chief of staff for Clinton, actual conservative groups such as Club for Growth don't rate him so positively. Again, I look at that as a good thing like being a Kerry flip-flopper. Someone conservative enough to get the full approval of Club for Growth would be more effective at being divisive than anything else. Regardless, it takes some gumption in today's climate to criticize Dodd-Frank for being to weak and advocate for a return to Glass-Steagall. As I said, he is knowledgeable and is willing to put himself out on unpopular issues... it's just when it comes to the actual voting he doesn't hold his ground.

Last edited by Malloric; 08-14-2012 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Boise, ID
5,277 posts, read 9,972,824 times
Reputation: 4598
I never understand why people don't get the concept that our nation's economy is a HUGE ship. It takes time to turn a huge ship, just like it takes time for policy changes to have an effect on the economy. The economic environment of any president's term of office is directly attributable to the policies of whoever was president during the PRIOR term.

So if a president is only elected once, we rarely have the opportunity to see their policies take effect until they are out of office. Sometimes in the last year a president is in office, we get to see things starting to kick in. Now, if they get elected to a second term, the state of the economy during that time may be attributed (mostly) to them, be it for good or bad.

The huge debt we have accrued over the last 4 years is due to Bush's policies. It will take the next few years to see what the economy does due to Obama's time in office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2012, 11:52 AM
 
Location: The Triad (nc)
17,082 posts, read 21,092,101 times
Reputation: 14140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
The (additional 41% of) debt we have accrued over the last 4 years is due to Bush's policies.
It will take the next few years to see what the economy does due to Obama's time in office.
^What she said.

The larger lesson to take is what impact the intransigent and obstructive members of Congress
have had on the recession/depression and unemployment continuing so long.
It's really amazing that the debt hasn't grown higher than it has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:51 AM
 
2,032 posts, read 2,190,114 times
Reputation: 1632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I never understand why people don't get the concept that our nation's economy is a HUGE ship. It takes time to turn a huge ship, just like it takes time for policy changes to have an effect on the economy. The economic environment of any president's term of office is directly attributable to the policies of whoever was president during the PRIOR term.

So if a president is only elected once, we rarely have the opportunity to see their policies take effect until they are out of office. Sometimes in the last year a president is in office, we get to see things starting to kick in. Now, if they get elected to a second term, the state of the economy during that time may be attributed (mostly) to them, be it for good or bad.

The huge debt we have accrued over the last 4 years is due to Bush's policies. It will take the next few years to see what the economy does due to Obama's time in office.
Well, in private interviews many business leaders have stated how effective Obama has been in killing our economy in his 3 1/2 years of forcing socialism down our throats. Part of business is viewing the landscape and trying to predict how governmental actions will affect business investment. Thus, many companies have held off further investment, including hiring, because of this 800-pound gorilla in the room called 'Obamacare'. I wouldn't say that it will take years to see Obama's legacy; I think that it is clear to all who are objective. But then, again, maybe Obama hasn't done much beyond Obamacare in that he has spent 2 1/2 years running for re-election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:01 AM
 
Location: The Triad (nc)
17,082 posts, read 21,092,101 times
Reputation: 14140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teak View Post
Thus, many companies have held off further investment, including hiring, because...
...because they didn't like the way has turned out and want to call for a do-over.
Meanwhile they have picked up their ball and gone home to sulk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2012, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Sacramento
7,424 posts, read 4,607,348 times
Reputation: 5414
Most businesses already offer healthcare, so Romneycare-style healthcare won't really have that much of an impact on them. The major differences are Romney care is more comprehensive (10, not 50 employees like Obamacare care; covers abortions directly and Obamacare does not). Romney would impose Romneycare on the state level, as he's said time and time again, if elected president. Perhaps more palitable to "states rats" types, but the 800 lb gorilla is the 800 lb gorilla. It doesn't much matter if it's imposed at the state level or federal level, it's still imposed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top