Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Wages for 99% of America has fallen or has been stagnant for 30 years. Don't blame that on last year's monetary policy. BTW, the president doesn't set Fed policy.
The Fed does nothing without the approval of the current administration. Bernanke enacted the first QE progam in November of 2008 just after the elections.
If Obama had dissaproved of that he would not have re-nominated him.
The Fed does nothing without the approval of the current administration. Bernanke enacted the first QE progam in November of 2008 just after the elections.
If Obama had dissaproved of that he would not have re-nominated him.
Bernanke acted at the time that he did because that's when the recession hit. According to wiki, the Fed was acting as early as 2007.
The Federal Reserve is an independent agency/corporation that after appointment, their members cannot be removed without impeachment. Bernanke was reappointed because his policies were appropriate. I am sure if Bernanke was trying to contract the economy instead of expand it he may not have been reappoint, and rightfully so.
I suggest that you read basic information on the Fed.
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
Romney seems to be avoiding one key fact that needs to be stated.....
Most people on government assistance, have a private sector job.
The question isn't answered by "get more people jobs", its answered by "How do we get them higher wages so they don't need government assistance?"
And that question isn't answered by cutting programs, its answered by growing the economy. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't cut government, we should, but the programs that Mr. Romney and the Republican hierarchy have decided to focus on won't grow the economy, and won't grow jobs.
The simple truth is, to get most assistance (food stamps, housing vouchers, healthcare, etc), you have to show you are working.
Romney seems to be avoiding one key fact that needs to be stated.....
Most people on government assistance, have a private sector job.
The question isn't answered by "get more people jobs", its answered by "How do we get them higher wages so they don't need government assistance?"
And that question isn't answered by cutting programs, its answered by growing the economy. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't cut government, we should, but the programs that Mr. Romney and the Republican hierarchy have decided to focus on won't grow the economy, and won't grow jobs.
The simple truth is, to get most assistance (food stamps, housing vouchers, healthcare, etc), you have to show you are working.
i am not sure why we should cut government, per se, if a program is succeeding to provide nutritional assistance, why should it be cut?
If WalMart workers are paid so little that they require Food Stamps, we should be responding by raising the wages of workers. But failing that, I see no reason to cut Food Stamps.
But essentially you are right, Romney isn't providing solutions to any of these problems. He merely parrots the same tired Republican policies -- lower taxes on the well to do and slash programs -- none of which promise to provide any help to the working class. Slashing government programs that help people as a solution to poverty reminds me of medieval doctors that would bleed sick patients, and when the patient got sicker, bleed them more.
i am not sure why we should cut government, per se, if a program is succeeding to provide nutritional assistance, why should it be cut?
If WalMart workers are paid so little that they require Food Stamps, we should be responding by raising the wages of workers. But failing that, I see no reason to cut Food Stamps.
But essentially you are right, Romney isn't providing solutions to any of these problems. He merely parrots the same tired Republican policies -- lower taxes on the well to do and slash programs -- none of which promise to provide any help to the working class. Slashing government programs that help people as a solution to poverty reminds me of medieval doctors that would bleed sick patients, and when the patient got sicker, bleed them more.
Some of the programs could be cut. We could cut food stamps, for instance, by issuing vouchers, not a "dollar" amount you can spend on things like candy bars and soda. The normal consumer, spending their money, should have every right to buy whatever the hell they want, but when you are on government assistance, then your choices should be severly limited.
We shouldn't force wal-mart to pay their workers more. We should make their workers want and demand more. Maybe that means unionize, maybe that means finding a different job, could mean a lot of things, but mandating minimum wages isn't the answer, it only raises prices for everyone so you defeat the purpose.
All government programs can, and should, be cut. Nothing should be off the board. But the amount, and the how, can be debated on each program individually, so you can judget its merits. I'm not against food stamps, but restricting what you can eat on them, doesn't seem to far fetched for me.
Bernanke acted at the time that he did because that's when the recession hit. According to wiki, the Fed was acting as early as 2007.
Arguement aside that does nothing to address my point. If Obama had disagreed with his actions he would not have re-nominated him.
Quote:
The Federal Reserve is an independent agency/corporation that after appointment, their members cannot be removed without impeachment. Bernanke was reappointed because his policies were appropriate. I am sure if Bernanke was trying to contract the economy instead of expand it he may not have been reappoint, and rightfully so.
I suggest that you read basic information on the Fed.
The Fed played a major role in our financial problems. They were the ones that allowed the rates to remain artificially low which caused much of our problems. Bernanke was leading the charge that the banks were in fine financial shape, full speed ahead.
The Fed played a major role in our financial problems. They were the ones that allowed the rates to remain artificially low which caused much of our problems. Bernanke was leading the charge that the banks were in fine financial shape, full speed ahead.
So low interest rates cause financial problems? But that argument, today's rates which are far lower than anything in 2007, we should be having massive problems, right?
I think you attribute statements to Bernanke that deserve to be attributed to Greenspan.
So low interest rates cause financial problems? But that argument, today's rates which are far lower than anything in 2007, we should be having massive problems, right?
We do. Are you not paying attention?
Quote:
I think you attribute statements to Bernanke that deserve to be attributed to Greenspan.
February 28, 2008: Chairman Bernanke said: “Among the largest banks, the capital ratios remain good and I don’t expect any serious problems … among the large, internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system.”
July 16, 2008: Chairman Bernanke said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are “adequately capitalized” and “in no danger of failing.”
4. Bernanke supported the deregulation of derivatives.
November of 2005: Chairman Bernanke was questioned by then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.):
SARBANES: Warren Buffett has warned us that derivatives are time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. The Financial Times has said so far, there has been no explosion, but the risks of this fast growing market remain real. How do you respond to these concerns?
BERNANKE: I am more sanguine about derivatives than the position you have just suggested. I think, generally speaking, they are very valuable. They provide methods by which risks can be shared, sliced, and diced, and given to those most willing to bear them. They add, I believe, to the flexibility of the financial system in many different ways. With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly. The Federal Reserve’s responsibility is to make sure that the institutions it regulates have good systems and good procedures for ensuring that their derivatives portfolios are well managed and do not create excessive risk in their institutions.
Is this not the type of things that many on the left has said caused much of the problems? How can this be a part of the problem yet the top guy that supported this is defended no matter what?
One can understand why I would dismiss your concerns as nothing but partisan crap.
"If he shows my state and he shows Americans that he has got a plan to take on these reforms, I think the real difference with what the president said this week is simple. The president and his allies believe success in government is defined by how many people are dependent on government programs. I think I, Governor Romney, and others, believe that success is just the opposite. How many fewer people are dependent on government programs because they have a job in the private sector where they can control their own freedom, their own destiny and ultimately lead to greater prosperity? That's the real difference there."
American wages are declining in real terms, especially those at the low end. I can see a not-distant future in which people currently dependent on government programs find themselves working for low/declining wages while programs are being cut.
On one hand these people will have a private sector job (crummy and dead-end, perhaps, but a job) and will no longer be dependent on government programs (because the programs have been cut and they have gone to work), yet no better off, and quite possibly worse off, than they were when they were dependent on goverment programs.
Is this success, in government or in the private sector?
this depends on individual views of success. You have stated here, many times how you feel government should be involved in our lives at every turn and the govenment is responsible for making sure everyone has everything they need. Many of us feel, we will get out of life what we put into it and we have control over our future. We are responsible for the decisions we mkae. We can choose to better ourselves or live in poverty. OK, I am generalzing, we know the job market isn't great and many people have lost their jobs by no fault but there is only so much the government or should do to assist. If we want to become a soicalistic or communistic country that is different. Most of us do not want that. The more control the government has, the more we lose our freedoms
Nita
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
