Obama pledges to halve U.S. budget deficit in 4 years
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 2 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
76 Comments
Login to comment
0
VOR
"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."
ding ding ding ding ding. Right answer. Now lets see what he does to control Pelosi and Ried from wasting even more money.
0
proxy
"shore up the nation’s banks." hehehe Bank of America and Citi need to be closed down and the scraps sold off before they suck in every penny.
0
Yelnats
It can be done.
0
smithinjapan
Why is it that Democratic Presidents always have to cut the deficit that Republicans bring in? Clinton did it after Reagan and even brought a SURPLUS! Now we have it happening again, only this time the deficit rung up by the past president is so massive Obama's only going to be able to reduce it somewhat.
Still, he's saving the country. I predict Yabits is correct in the last thread about the stimulus package: all the Republicans on here and in government whining about Obama will proclaim it a Republican victory when Obama's plans start working; they'll say it was based on GWB's tax cuts to the ultra-rich in 2001.
0
yabits
And we should never, ever forget how George W. Bush portrayed those projected surpluses back in 2001: With the national debt standing at over $5 trillion when Bush came to office, Bush called the surpluses an "overpayment" (!) that had to be "refunded" to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts.
Did Bush apply the same logic when deficits started to appear -- that they were an "underpayment" requiring hikes in taxes? Not on your life. He could not be honest with the American people about anything, and neither can his Republican enablers and apologists.
0
Sarge
"the swelling U.S. budget deficit"
And this is without any terrorist attacks crippling the airline industry, like the previous administration had to deal with. What the heck is President Obama going to do if we suffer another devastatating terrorist attack?
"Wall Street showed it was unimpressed by all the activity"
Hmmm...
0
SushiSake3
When George Bush and the GOP were fleecing Americans and increasing U.S. national debt by an eye-watering $6 TRILLION+ (a large chunk of it given away to foreigners and the rich), here's what Sarge and VOR, etc. had to say
That's right - nothing. Zip. Zero. Squat.
But now that President Obama is now starting to fix the economy - that bush with Republicans' support drove off a cliff - by putting money back into the the hands of Americans, Republicans are suddenly up in arms, crying 'It costs too much!' 'We need to reduce the deficit!' (after they increased it by $6 trillion), and - my personal favorite - "Cut taxes!"
LOL!
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "What the heck is President Obama going to do if we suffer another devastatating terrorist attack?"
You mean the one that the previous president let in after being specifically briefed about the possibility of an aerial attack on the USA?
I sure hope President Obama doesn't take a leaf out of the previous president's book, ignore all evidence and facts and invade Canada? No, wait - invade Cuba?
You tell me? :-)
0
Sarge
Sushi: "I sure hope President Obama doesn't take a leaf out of the previous president's book, ignore all evidence and facts and invade Canada? No, wait - invade Cuba?"
Bizarre post.
0
SushiSake3
Sarge (and VOR), why didn't you say anything when bush and co. were burning through $6 trillion over the last 8 years?
You greenlighted that increadible amount of spending, yet you are against the stimulus, which - in stunning contrast to the spending priorities of the previous president - is going to be spent on your fellow countrymen.
0
Sarge
If President Obama is going to halve the budget deficit in 4 years ( right at the end of his term - what great timing! ) he's going to have to reverse himself starting, like, right now.
Sushi: "why didn't you say anything when bush and co. were burning through $6 trillion"
We've already been through that. Bush is history. Now we have to deal with President Obama and the Democrat-mislead Congress.
0
Triumvere
how?!
0
SushiSake3
Sarge, so you can't offer up any reasons at all why you greenlighted bush's $6 billion in spending?
That's it - no defence at all?
This is directly relevant because it's a key reason why your government is now having to borrow from future generations to bail the economy out of the mess that you, my friend, help to create.
If you deny responsibility and do not realize how and where you went wrong, you are only likely to repeat your errors in future.
Sorry if I sound like I am lecturing, but taking responsibility and realizing one's errors is a cruciual step in making the future a better place.
Standard post-election Republican practice of sweeping past errors under the mat and hoping no one will notice just isn't going to work this time, sorry.
.
've got no
0
SushiSake3
Sorry, that should have been: "so you can't offer up any reasons at all why you greenlighted bush's $6 TRILLION in spending?"
0
skipthesong
"so you can't offer up any reasons at all why you greenlighted bush's $6 TRILLION in spending?"" He probably can't but can you specify why you greenlight all spending by Obama without using Bush's failures as a good reason? Up until now, you have only given the reason of Bush..... We are not little girls being playing house. Bush's failures are not good enough reasons for the current spending.
0
SushiSake3
skipthesong - "Bush's failures are not good enough reasons for the current spending."
Bush's failures - lax governance of financial industry regulations, massive wasted spending (all of it borrowed) on 2 wrong-headed wars and his trickle-up tax approach are fundamental reasons why the market collapsed.
The lax regulation governance helped create the finance industry cowboys who made millions selling financial products, many of which they didn't even fully understand, let alone the buyers.
The incredible financial outlays in Iraq (for what?) only ramped up spending and increased U.S. debt servicing costs by a good $200 billion a year, and by making America less safe, guaranteed defence budgets will remain high and costly for years to come.
Do you want me to go on?
And what - if I may ask - is the alternative to this massive government bailout?
Having the government sit on its hands isn't going to solve anything - doing nothing will not stimulate government spending, doing nothing will only lead to more housing foreclosures, more businesses to fail and more people losing their jobs (unemployment rolls are now on a steady run to 10 million).
So what is the alternative but more spending?
Unfortunately, President Obama is sitting between a rock and a hard place.
He has very little flexibility at this point.
skip - "Up until now, you have only given the reason of Bush....."
Well, Clinton left bush with a $260 billion surplus, and Obama took over the reins of power a little over 4 weeks ago.
If it's not these guys, then who is to blame?
Hmmm......I wonder....?
0
yabits
Bush may be history, but all of the supporters who endorsed his lies and turned a collective blind eye to the damage he was doing are still very much with us and still spouting their mendacity.
They should be history too, such is their total lack of credibility.
0
skipthesong
Bush's failures - lax governance of financial industry regulations, massive wasted spending (all of it borrowed) on 2 wrong-headed wars and his trickle-up tax approach are fundamental reasons why the market collapsed."
most of the people running any oversight of Wall St. were Clinton appointees. Bush made very few changes to oversight of Wall st, which in my opinion was the correct thing to do. I mean, you agree that he was an idiot, god fobid if he did stick he hands into, right? Now, take a look at who is still there running government oversight of Wall St.and now you want more?
The lax regulation governance helped create the finance industry cowboys who made millions selling financial products, many of which they didn't even fully understand, let alone the buyers." No, no, no. Government getting involved in would should have always been hands off once laws are found not to be broken. Who created teh Fannie Mae and Freddie Macks? No, this is and always a mess waiting to happen. If Bush should have done anything at all was to get those who are still there calling the shots and those who will remain.
The incredible financial outlays in Iraq (for what?) only ramped up spending and increased U.S. debt servicing costs by a good $200 billion a year, and by making America less safe, guaranteed defence budgets will remain high and costly for years to come." Are you sure you follow up on government/military contracting? From you posts, I am going to say you can't. You have contracts rolling in over ten years ago and still going. And not for nothing, many of those wasted contracts are at least employing thousands of workers who would otherwise would never be able to get a job.
Do you want me to go on?" As a matter of fact, I do.
And what - if I may ask - is the alternative to this massive government bailout?" The harsh reality. And why did Obama call for more CEO responsibility but he just brang in GE former CEO onto his administration?????? Have you looked at that stock lately?
Having the government sit on its hands isn't going to solve anything" Actually it will. It would leave the people who know how to make money and effectivley cut costs.
doing nothing will not stimulate government spending," Neither willl this bill nor any of the open plans.
doing nothing will only lead to more housing foreclosures," then buy!
more businesses to fail and more people losing their jobs (unemployment rolls are now on a steady run to 10 million)." And yet you are complaining about military contracting.
So what is the alternative but more spending?"
Unfortunately, President Obama is sitting between a rock and a hard place." Ok, I will not argue that and that is why you need to get off the moot point of Bush. Its like you going out with a girl, cheating on her and then saying well your last boyfriend beat you up so I'm good to go.
He has very little flexibility at this point.
skip - "Up until now, you have only given the reason of Bush....."
Well, Clinton left bush with a $260 billion surplus, and Obama took over the reins of power a little over 4 weeks ago." And that cost the military a lot and as well as a lot of infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Bush, but damn you, you are letting people walk on you.
If it's not these guys, then who is to blame?" I said on a number of posts who were the many on both sides of the house whose fault it was and what were things that people should have seen coming as far back as ten years ago. But I got grilled.
0
VOR
The only thing Obama and his den of thieves have done so far is rob a trillion dollars from the next generation. It wouldn't be so bad if it was being spent on things that would actually stimulate the economy but most of it will be spent paying off democratic operatives and increasing entitlements to people who are dependent on the Democrats for their livelihood. It will not fix the economy and will actually make things worse. Much worse.
The people who vilify the very people who are attempting to hold their government accountable are blinded by hate and intolerance. Most of the hatemongers are not US citizens and have no "skin in the game" and their opinions are meaningless.
The US has faced some of its greatest challenges over the last 8 years and these challenges are likely to continue for the forseeable future. Blaming George Bush is an oversimplification of the complex world we live in. If George Bush had the power of a line item veto, yeah sure one can place total blame on him, but its congress that gets a budget to the President, and for those interested in the truth, both the democrats and the republicans share in the overspending up to the current stimulus bill which is owned by the democrats and three very stupid republicans.
The only ones buying the argument that one man; George Bush destroyed the nation are people who aren't interested in the truth.
0
WayneRooney10
Stocks are in a free fall. Not much stimulating going on there!
0
adaydream
Don't worry my republican posters, Barack Obama will just break your heart if he accomplishes anything. At least george bush lied, lied and continued to lie before I came to detest him. With Barack Obama, he only need be a democrat.
When the stimulus package was put together, portions were changed to help bring republicans on board. Out of 219 republican congressmen only 3 voted for it. That's an effort to fight Barack Obama at the expense of their constiuents. But they know best.
That'll just make the democrats even stronger come next election. < :-)
0
WayneRooney10
The markets have gone back to 1997 levels!
0
skipthesong
Obama pledges to halve U.S. budget deficit in 4 years " so that leaves us where we started.
At least george bush lied, lied and continued to lie before I came to detest him" Oh come on Aday, grow up man.
That's an effort to fight Barack Obama at the expense of their constiuents." It probably is and the package itself was nothing more appeasing people who don't hve much to lose if it fails.
Stocks are in a free fall. Not much stimulating going on there!" That's ok, because people here have faith in government. They have faith that the government will take care of them just like mommy and daddy.
Why isn't anyone concerned that not only are stocks falling dramatically but the very same people responsible for several of the biggest market losers are now on board with the Obama admin?
0
Sarge
"The markets have gone back to 1997 levels"
President Obama has warned us that things will get worse before they get better.
Now that's Change We Can Believe In!
0
SushiSake3
You just gotta love VOR and his 'Obama and his den of thieves' line.
It's pretty impressive, considering VOR never offers any solutions, only complaints. :-)
0
Helter_Skelter
Doesn't look like the market is buying it, but nice try Obama.
0
smithinjapan
"Bush's failures are not good enough reasons for the current spending"
Ummm... you're right in one respect, they are not the 'REASONS', but the reason, singular... as in the ONLY reason that the current stimulus package exists. NEXT!
0
skipthesong
You just gotta love VOR and his 'Obama and his den of thieves' line." The entire US government has and is and has always been a den of thieves, however there have been a few admins that at least allowed me to make cash for myself, unfortunately, this isn't one of them.
Was anyone here old enough to invest when Regan was president? I like to have a comparison.
0
SushiSake3
President Obama has barely started trying to wrench the U.S. economy out of the wreckage caused by the previous president and his misguided supporters, many of whom are still flailing about trying to pretend they are still credible on JT. :-)
Give it time. Have any payments been made yet out of the stimulus package?
Funny thing is, if Republicans had their way, they would well and truly finish off what they started and drive a stake deep into the heart of the U.S. economy.
Thank God they were stopped. :-)
0
WayneRooney10
The Asian markets are down. Europe's falling as well. It's a case of buyer's remorse is what it is, and its breaking out all over America, thats what I reckon. America sneezes, and the rest of us get the bubonic plague!
0
sailwind
Every single time Obama opens his mouth about the economy. I LOSE money.
Somebody tell the man to please shut up before I'm totally wiped out.
Smith, Sushi and all the other Bush obsessed here. You should be on your knees thanking George Bush and his failures. If it wasn't for him Obama would never have been elected and pushing a socialist nightmare agenda that you all fully support, on the rest of us now.
Before I get blasted once again with "Obama had to do something". I agree, but it sure in the heck didn't have to be this 'progressive' nightmare path he chose. I was really hoping he was going to be a centrist, I really was.
I'm slowly going broke and so far he sure isn't helping folks like me at all. I work for a living, play by the rules, so I'm not entitled to his goodie package.
Should have been living on credit cards and buying a house I couldn't afford all these years. Then I get some goodies from his 'plan'.
Thanks Obama for the change I can believe in. After your done with me thats all I'm going to be worth in my portfolio. No dollars just some change.
0
smithinjapan
Here's a question: why is it that since most Americans approve of this stimulus plan, those very few who don't -- coincidentally the same few who still support bushes policies -- seem to think they are right and everyone else is wrong?
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - sorry for your portfolio; mine is heading south too.
"If it wasn't for him Obama would never have been elected and pushing a socialist nightmare agenda that you all fully support, on the rest of us now."
Wait up - if your president wasn't pushing this "socialist nightmare agenda," your economy would be going down the toilet even faster than it already is.
Think: President Obama does nothing --> many of your banks and big companies like GM, Ford, etc. don't get saved, go to the wall, unemployment skyrockets real fast.
At the very least, Obama's actions are slowing the fall.
And hey, if John McCain had ever been elected, you would have had him to heap all the blame on then as he has even less of a clue about basic economics than most Republicans.
But Sailwind, why are we even in this mess in the first place? And under whose watch did it start unravelling?
Call me 'bush-obsessed' all you like. At least I don't try to ignore the elephant in the china shop and say it/he doesn't exist. :-)
Sailwind - here's the bottom line in 3 simple points:
1/ This economic collapse that is wrecking havoc on your portfolio did not start on the watch of the current president. The recession started in December 2007.
2/ President Obama took office 4 weeks ago.
3/ Under bush's watch, your government incurred more debt than any nation in the history of the planet.
Stop blaming President Obama for the economic collapse that started on bush's watch.
0
GJDailleult
Actually, we're just wondering why you only started to worry about holding your government accountable about five weeks ago.
Whether or not you are wiped out (and I sincerely hope you are not) will have nothing to do with Obama opening his mouth or not. That train left the station long, long before he showed up.
0
sailwind
Let make this LOUD and CLEAR, I'm not blaming Obama for the BI-PARTISAN economic collapse he inherited.
I'm blaming him for the stupid way he is going about trying to fix it. Blaming Bush and those 'evil republicans' isn't going to put food on my table at dinner time. Now it seems investing money under the Obama administration isn't going to either.
Now if I take my money out of the market and park it into a stodgy savings account to try to stave off the bleeding. Guess what?????? I pay capital gains tax if I sell so the losers his plan subsidizes will get even more cash from me.
This sucks....rant over.
0
TexasAggie
Obama pledges to halve U.S. budget deficit in 4 years
What the headline should say is: "Obama pledges to halve Dow Jones by year's end"
Markets don't respond well to higher taxes and more government interferance.
0
skipthesong
still support bushes policies" Oh here we go again. I am not supporting Bush's policies, however, those of us who were making money are now finding ourselves not to and the only thing I get that makes anything Obama is doing is "at least Bush this and that..."
Sushi, smith, are you willing to help us out? I didn't think so.
You have given this guy a pass on everything under the sun all due to Bush.
0
skipthesong
Let make this LOUD and CLEAR, I'm not blaming Obama for the BI-PARTISAN economic collapse he inherited.
I'm blaming him for the stupid way he is going about trying to fix it. Blaming Bush and those 'evil republicans' isn't going to put food on my table at dinner time. Now it seems investing money under the Obama administration isn't going to either. "
ALL HEED TO THE WORDS ABOVE. Sailwind, again, comes out shining. Sushi, why can't you at least be a bit more respectful and logical like sail?
He's right and now we can't even think about off shoring our cash.
0
SushiSake3
skip, Sail, etc. - so the $6 trillion your nation lost and is now expected to pay back is water under the bridge?
Is that how it goes? Is this a Dick Cheney 'Deficits don't matter' moment??
Those of you with medium to long-term futures and kids are going to have to pay for bush's excesses (there I go again) through higher interest rates to pay off the approximately $450 billion your nation is now paying a year in debt servicing payments.
Yes, this will go up under President Obama, but I strongly believe it would have gone up much faster and left your economy in far worse shape had John McCain won in November.
You guys know doing nothing was not an option. The only guy whose argument I buy here is skip's since he has been independant and wanted a decent third party all along.
I never hear you talking about debt servicing payments, which is kinda interesting.
0
skipthesong
Is that how it goes? Is this a Dick Cheney 'Deficits don't matter' moment??" Hey, I told you guys a lot of times, if you want to, just shoot the dude. I don't care about Cheney. Stop it.
Yes, this will go up under President Obama, but I strongly believe it would have gone up much faster and left your economy in far worse shape had John McCain won in November." I didn't vote for McCain.
You guys know doing nothing was not an option." I would hve preferred the gov did nothing. When have we ever had faith in our elected leaders? Why should I have faith in a guy like Obama or McCain? They should keep their hands out of business and let it roll naturally aside from laws being set in place. You think Obama is going to clean things up but no one from the past handling things for the gov on Wall st. has been removed. In fact, you gave them move power to make decisions at their blessing.
You keep hitting this at Bush and since you feel he was such a screw up, that no matter what is going to be done now is all ok? come on. Look, even if Bush wouldn't have been in office, 9-11 still would have happened and we would still at least be in one war. I mean our last president could have been Gore (my choice) or Kerry and you think no war would have happened and there would have been no problems?
0
LFRAgain
Sailwind,
1) Quite honestly, anyone who has the capital to invest in the first place has no place complaining about being able to "put food on the table." You're doing juuuuust fine.
2) Your idea of letting the companies that screwed up simply go under, a la "a natural death due to market forces," sounds great on paper. And if we could afford it, that's the way I'd love it to play out too. But we can't afford it. Not with the economy where it's at. Not with the amount of debt the US is saddled with.
The reality is that if the number of companies that are in trouble now are simply allowed to fold, including almost the entire auto industry, that's 2 million people suddenly out of work. That's a Depression. No, not a "Ahh, it's a dpression so we'd better cut back on extraneous household speniding like Premium Cable" depression. We're talking job loses in the additional millions, umemployment claims cleaning out government coffers, and spiraling deflation, which would be even worse, burying the US, and subsequently the world, into an even deeper hole from which it could take a decade or more to climb out of. We're talking infrastructure collapse due to its inablilty to handle the inevitable mass migrations of people looking for work/shelter/food. And then things'll get worse.
And you're worried about the capital gains tax on your investments? Those invested dollars that you worry so much about getting a respectable return on? They'd be worth more lighting a fire in your fireplace than in any money market if the auto industry were allowed to fold. You know it and Washington does too.
You need to keep things in proper perspective and understand that the bigger picture isn't really about you, but rather everyone.
0
SuperLib
Well said. It's one of the most important issues of our generation and some people just can't put down politics for a short while and speak honestly.
0
SuperLib
Well sad as well. I don't see the package as necessarily a stimulus package, but something to stop the bottom from falling out. We could be looking at a sustained period where people stop spending money, default on their credit, mass protests, governments being overturned, etc.
0
TexasAggie
The Dow Jones has lost 42% of its value since the day Obama became the Democrat party nominee for president.
34% since he was officially nominated at the convention
12% since he became president
12% since the details of the stimulus passed by the House was released
6% since he signed the stimulus bill six days ago.
America has zero confidence in Obama thanks to his whining and fear mongering. He's failed miserably.
0
skipthesong
republicans had terror to instill fear in us democrats have the economy
what will that third party think up - aliens?
0
Betzee
Sailwind,
My stock portfolio has lost 50 grand in value over the past week. Would it be worth more if Obama had done nothing and insisted "the fundamentals of our economy are sound"? Don't think denial would be the better route. Even Republicans like Lindsey Graham are using the word "nationalization" to describe what Uncle Sam should do with failed banks and their toxic assets. It's not a word that's part of American business culture, but everyone agrees it's better than depression.
Where Obama could be faulted is by saying, "we've hit bottom." Yet to speak otherwise would hardly inspire confidence in the market.
0
Betzee
Simply not true:
Large majorities of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll support [Obama's] $787 billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75 billion plan to stem mortgage foreclosures. Nearly seven in 10 poll respondents said Obama is delivering on his pledge to bring needed change to Washington, and about eight in 10 said he is meeting or exceeding their expectations.
0
likeitis
Your numbers don't add up. You are certainly no mathmetician.
And the economy does hinge totally on the President's mouth. You are certainly no economist either.
0
likeitis
That is debatable. My understanding is that the the Clinton admin paid serious attention to al-Quaida and that Bush was not much of a reader, even of security docs handed directly to him.
Absolutely not guaranteed. This one I can say with total confidence. It was never necessary to try to take out the Taliban or try to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. The core goals were hitting al-Quaida and getting bin Laden. Those goals could have been accomplished a variety of ways, including negotiating with the Taliban, which the Bush admin flat out refused to do. (And when people refuse to talk, I get mighty suspicious. I start thinking that war was their goal all along. Its not like you have to put a hold on troop prep while you talk, is it? It takes time to ship troops. Might as well talk in the inter-rim.)
0
SushiSake3
LFRAgain, Betzee, good posts.
To reiterate on my comment in my previous post - "You guys know doing nothing was not an option."
I admit, many people have many different ideas that different variations of the Democrat's plan will work, more tax cuts, less tax cuts, more spending on energy, you name it.
However, as LFRAgain clearly pointed out, doing nothing was not, is not, and will not be an option - "Not with the economy where it's at. Not with the amount of debt the US is saddled with."
The U.S. economy is saddled with bush-era debt that has simply spiralled out of control. Bush and co., with Republican support, added more than $6 trillion to the U.S. debt mountain, creating ever mounting debt servicing costs that the Republicans, interestingly, never bring up in their discussions.
Also as I mentioned above, Obama has very little room to move now. Why? Because the Republicans put him in a straightjacket.
Now, the very same Republicans are trying to skewer the President for being in the near impossible position their voting put him in.
Let's face it - any Republican who voted twice for bush and who is now wondering why their house prices or share portfolios are evaporating in front of them, honestly, deserves very little sympathy.
And they should be the first in the queue to apologize to the rest of us (Betzee and myself included, who did not vote bush) for the losses we are right now incurring on our stock portfolios.
I think what is required - before the insults start raining down - is something that is almost non-existant among Republicans - personal responsibility.
0
Betzee
Sushi,
Last night I spoke with my Dad, a retired stock broker, and he said, "I was worried the value of your portfolio had dropped 100 grand." So I guess I should count my blessings; particularly having a secure job in a time of mounting unemployment.
As for the nation, there's a broad consensus emerging that the best way to stem the financial sector's hemorrhaging is by nationalizing the banks. Now the bail-outs haven't worked, this is the last remaining option to inspire investor confidence after deregulation brought us derivatives and sub-prime mortgages.
0
sailwind
Sailwind,
1) Quite honestly, anyone who has the capital to invest in the first place has no place complaining about being able to "put food on the table." You're doing juuuuust fine.
LRA
I spent twenty years in the Navy. I started investing in mutual funds in 1997 before 401K's where even thought about. My goal was to finish my service have enough cash to buy a house cash use my retirement income to cover the basics.
I gave twenty years of my life living in circumstances that you could not even imaginge. Working toward goal.
Now you post: "Quite honestly, anyone who has the capital to invest in the first place has no place complaining about being able to "put food on the table." You're doing juuuuust fine.
Give me those twenty years back of sacrafice that I could have spent on credit cards and tell me I'm doing juuuust fine.
0
sailwind
And LRA...Where is my bail-out?
0
VOR
sailwind, next time when the media and democrats start talking down the economy, particulary when the media has chosen their candidate, take that as a signal to pull out of stocks and bonds and buy gold. i've made a killing over the last two years with a nice runup still to go. like you i've been investing since 1985 and have enough assets to weather the storm. i consider myself one of the lucky ones for making my move out of the market when I saw what was happening on the political front. i don't need government handouts but I'll take advantage of whatever situation the dirty stinking lying politicians get us into.
0
LFRAgain
Sailwind,
Are you out of a job? Have you had to cash in your investments early in order to pay for food and housing, much less medical care?
People working for the auto industry for 20 years or longer are facing just these scenarios. These are the middle-class backbone of the American tax base who are about to lose the ability to contribute to a system that provides education, healthcare, infrastructure, and a military for the American people. And you're griping about your investments losing value, as if that were the most pressing issue of the day when people are faced with homelessness?! You have got be kidding if you think anyone here is supposed to shed a tear for you when you've still very clearly got far more than a simple cup to piss in while so many millions of Americans are on the brink of having far, far less.
It seems you missed the point made by many others earlier: Without this bailout, your investments, which are valued less now, yes, but still have value, would possess ZERO value if the bottom were allowed to fall out. How is it that you just can't seem to get that? You want a bailout? Let me spell it out for you simply: You have money and are obviously financially sound. You don't need a bailout. When compared to the 11.6 million Americans who are now out of jobs, 7 million of whom lost their job within the past 12 months, yes, you're doing just fine.
0
yabits
Blaming Bush is nothing but shorthand for pinning down the real problem: The millions of stupid Americans who believed that putting a non-achiever and lifelong alcohol abuser into the White House was a good thing. Bush is gone, but their stupidity lingers on.
And, yes, it is sheer stupidity to tolerate and even endorse the degrading conditions over eight long years and then try to pin blame and otherwise heap disparagement on a guy who has barely been in office for five weeks!
0
SushiSake3
Here's how I'm seeing the Republican/conservative voter mind working:
Republican/conservative voters support bush and co. for 8 years and say nothing while their government pumps up national debt by a staggering $6 trillion.
When their government pours what will likely be $2-3 trillion into a totally unwarrented war in Iraq - they make not a peep.
When, for the first time in history, the U.S. government funds an entire war (Iraq) using borrowed money, again, the Republican/conservative say absolutely nothing.
When the economy begins to unwind and the recession starts on bush's watch way back in December 2007, then hey - of course - it must all be the fault of President Obama, a guy who has only been in power for a little over 4 weeks.
Sometimes, you've got to wonder what the Republicans/conservatives are on.......
0
adaydream
I remember when george bush said he'd cut the budget. We see how well he did. Barack Obama couldn't do any worse then bush did, but the republicans are just berzerk that a democrat was elected president. They are just praying that something blows up and Obama fails.
They'd rather see Obama fail, then see the country come back. < :-)
0
smithinjapan
adaydream: "They'd rather see Obama fail, then see the country come back. < :-)"
Bingo! That's why they lost the last election, and both houses before. No one cares for their politics of fear and hatred anymore, and instead opt for hope. They simply cannot deal with that fact and so, as you have said, they would rather the country simply fail or WORSE so that they think they are somehow justified in saying 'I told you so' (despite bringing in on themselves).
An all-around sad state of affairs, these people are.
0
TheQuestion
I still get a laugh out of people saying that Obama is going to 'put money back into peoples pockets' while at the same time he is going to cut the budget deficite, while increasing healthcare, while increasing the war on terror, while saving the housing market, while slaying the Nemean lion, while moving the world away from the sun to prevent global warming, and while covering the world with rainbows and sunshine. That about covers it right?
I hear a lot of promises and a lot of wishfull thinking comming from this administration without many results, and what results there are smell of rushed planning and privet agendas. I see the nationalization of the banking and auto industry. And I notice the eerie silence comming from Russia. We all remember the invasion last year but for some reason they haven't said a word since the election, not even a complaint about sending more troops into afghanistan, a country which has held the russian interest for quite some time.
0
SuperLib
Stop trying to change the subject.
0
sailwind
LFRA
My investments when they increase in value creates REAL jobs not taxpayer subsidized ones. When they lose value they create homelessness........ I get that, Obama doesn't.
Yes I'm gripping because my money should be putting people to work not losing value and putting them on the street, which if things keep going the way they are I'm going to be right behind them.
Economics 101 LFRA.
0
SushiSake3
The Question - "I still get a laugh out of people saying that Obama is going to slaying the Nemean lion, while moving the world away from the sun to prevent global warming, and while covering the world with rainbows and sunshine."
Ehhrr...no one is saying that.
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - "Yes I'm gripping because my money should be putting people to work not losing value and putting them on the street,"
If you voted for bush twice, tough luck. You brought it on yourself.
0
sailwind
Brilliant logic Sushi. If I voted for Gore, then Kerry would I then qualify for a bailout now?
Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush.......... He's retired get over it.
0
yabits
If you voted for Gore, then Gore again, you would not need a bailout.
As Truman said, "If you expect to live like a Republican, you'd better learn to vote like a Democrat."
0
Brunobear
Sadly, The US like Japan is bankrupt. The US had public debt of 85% of its GDP of US$14 trillion while Japan has a whopping public debt of 183% of its GDP of US$4.3 trillion. Most of Europe has public debt in excess of 50% of GDP with some countries as high as 90% of GDP. The most prosperous country in the world is Australia which has zero% net public debt to GDP and rich in agriculture, minerals, energy in 45% of the world uranium, and has a highly educated and skilled workforce that speaks English. I provided the strategy in 1991 that put Australia on its path to be No. 1 in the world in 2009 and safe from the financial disaster that is making many former G20 countries, basket cases. No one is lining up asking me what simple strategies I think the world has to do to get it out of this mess. The world is asking lawyers to save them. God help us all. I am just lucky I live in Melbourne.
0
LFRAgain
Sailwind,
Ah, yes, the great philanthropist, John Sailwind Rockefeller. Sorry, but you haven’t painted a very compelling portrait of yourself as a man seeking to help lift the unemployed from social welfare squalor, particularly with your incessant whining over the past three months about the dropping value of your stock portfolio. If I recall correctly, on at least two occasions, you punctuated your whine-fests with, “Where’s my bailout?” Philanthropist indeed.
The baffling thing here is that you have somehow now decided to plant this economic mess on Obama’s doorstep, as if he single-handedly orchestrated it and the stimulus package he pushed was made simply to spite you and other investors (I’m certain you still wake up in a cold sweat on some nights to the haunting echoes of Obama's “ . . . Spread the wealth . . . Spread the wealth . . . “).
Your Econ 101 lesson about rising stock values helping create “real” jobs is interesting. How exactly does the value of your stocks, stocks that can't be converted to real useable dollars, at least not without incurring a penalty, stocks that have lost 32% of their value over the past year, help create jobs? You aren’t actually going to suggest that you’d personally spend more money than normal, thus creating higher demand in the manufacturing sector, are you? With what extra cash, pray tell?
Interestingly, that didn’t work with the blessings of Reaganomics. Why would you think it would suddenly work now, in the MIDST of a market meltdown, relying solely on the individual impetus and goodwill of individual investors? Historically speaking, when investors in the 1930s were given the choice, they opted to hoard their cash, rather than spend it to prop up “supply-side” economics, thus prolonging the Depression. All “supply-side” gave us at the start of the 1990s was a monstrous federal deficit.
Again (and here you’re either being purposefully obtuse about this or you really just don’t get it), had Obama done what you’re calling for, namely allow the Big Three to fold, the economy would have seen an instant collapse in the stock market, followed by individual investors like yourself selling off stocks in a mass panic, culminating in “The Great Depression: Part Two – We’ve Learned Nothing Over the Past 80 Years.” And judging by how far off your normally sharp perspective has strayed recently, you can be sure as the sun rises in the east that you’d be the first here to cry, “Damn Obama! Why didn’t he do anything to stop this?”
Here’s a question for you, with your self-professed expertise in Economics 101: What would you do that Obama hasn’t yet? I mean, besides cut the capital gains tax so you can plan for your future while the country spirals to ruin?
(Speaking of capital gains, which seems to be the biggest thorn in your side in all this, unless you’re making more than $250,000 a year, which is approximately $200,000 more than the median US income, your capital gains tax would remain exactly the same as it’s been under seven of Bush’s eight years, and significantly lower than they were during Reagan’s administration. But judging by how worked up you’re getting about the tax, it would appear you’re in an upper-tier income bracket, where Obama proposes a capital gains tax increase. So, are you making more than $250,000 a year? If so, then you’re doing more than just fine in the current economy.)
0
sailwind
LFRA
What's up with the insults? Whinefests??? I've lost about half the value of my lifes savings.....Half, and I shouldn't grip or complain?
As far as does little gem.....
It is obviously lost on you that "Where's my bailout?" in my posts is nothing more than a slam and pure sarcasm on those who think they are "Entitled" to one. I'm too busy earning a living, not thinking I'm owed one instead thank you.
Also give me a break on the Economics lesson. Your supporting a plan that is relying on taxpayer funded jobs......Taxpayer funded. What is going to happen when those jobs are completed and the money runs out. They are totally dependent on the Government. You honestly think that is "job creation".???? The construction companies that are going to hire are going to keep on the payroll after Uncle Sam stops the cash flow?
Think they're going to be just magically scooped up by other private sector companies after the projects are completed?
And this part?
My very first post on this thread
Let make this LOUD and CLEAR, I'm not blaming Obama for the BI-PARTISAN economic collapse he inherited.
I'm blaming him for the stupid way he is going about trying to fix it. Blaming Bush and those 'evil republicans' isn't going to put food on my table at dinner time. Now it seems investing money under the Obama administration isn't going to either.
Now if I take my money out of the market and park it into a stodgy savings account to try to stave off the bleeding. Guess what?????? I pay capital gains tax if I sell so the losers his plan subsidizes will get even more cash from me.
I even bolded it, not meaning to be rude, but do you actually read my posts? I thought I was pretty clear that I don't blame Obama for this mess. I don't think I could have been any clearer on that point.
I invested in PRIVATE companies. They make a profit and pay a dividend as a reward to me for putting WORKING CAPITAL into their company so they can produce whatever products or services that is their bread and butter. I re-invest all dividends back and buy even more stock in the funds that I am. Money is a TOOL in the private sector, in the Government sector it is a SUBSIDY funded by the Taxpayer. If I pull my money and put under the mattress it does not create jobs (but it keeps Uncle Sugar from getting his mitts on it). My money and millions of others just like myself are doing exactly that in the market using our money as tools and hoping that we can make a little profit in the form of dividends from our investment choices.
Nowhere close and pure conjecture on your part.
Now to answer you questions, and I have answered them before many times on different threads.
How many of those companies didn't get started because of this Tax? Mull that over for a moment.
Cut the corporate tax rate to 12.9 percent instead of the 39.9 rate we currently have. We have lost so many jobs because it is cheaper to ship them overseas and pay the LOWER tax rates there then here. It's dumb and it needs to match Irelands rate. Ireland had the fastest growing Economy in Europe the past ten years or so because of they slashed the rate to 12.9 percent. Businesses started to flock there employing Irish workers. We could do the same in a heartbeat and employ Americans again instead of Taxpayer paid salaries.
Spending Freeze. Government is asking to sacrafice. Set the example. Get the Government's house in order show that is also willing to go through the same pain as millions of ordanary Americans are. Before the Government tells us to cut up the credit cards, it has to do the same first. That is moral authority....sorely lacking in this plan.
Tight regulatory oversite by the Government. The only area that I would increase Government to get the economy rolling again in a safe and sane manner.
Do all these things and sit back and watch the American people do what they do best.......Make stuff the world wants to buy once again.
When you respond I would ask that you please refrain from implying that I shouldn't complain about losing 50 percent of my life savings, or that I am "rich" and think the little guy should just, "eat cake". Because LFRA I am the little guy, just one who thinks he has to earn a living and ISN'T entitled to a bailout just becuase I happened to born on this planet and dammit you owe me a Plasma T.V after all.
0
yabits
It provides no comfort, but the basic reality is that whatever you thought the peak value of your investments were... was something only on paper. Unless, that is you were able to transfer out of stocks to T-Bills or cash-based instruments in a timely fashion.
The great lesson here is the enormous folly of replacing a program like Social Security with private investment programs that have to be managed by fallible human beings. A rush to the windows to cash out, will cause an even greater panic by those whose future incomes are completely tied into a market they have no control over, without the basic floor that Social Security provides.
0
LFRAgain
Sailwind,
First things first. After spending considerable time looking through Obama’s evil “socialist agenda” stimulus plan, I couldn’t find one area in the package in which Americans with overwhelming credit card debt were being helped by this stimulus package. Not one. There go those plasma TVs, I suppose.
Sure, you should complain. It’s a hell of a thing to see this happen to one’s investments. Just realize that you’re aiming your ire in the wrong direction while trying to dress yourself up as someone on the way to the poorhouse, when in fact, you’re nowhere close. Perspective is what you need. When poor people complain about being poor, they’re “lazy, unmotivated, stupid,” or what was the word you used, “losers”? But when people with enough spare money to actually play the stock market cry about being poor, they’re justified in their rage? Whatever.
I’ll give you a break when you spare me your snugness as well, Mr. “That’s Economics 101.”
Just calling it like I see it. Your very first post on this thread was used to lambaste Obama for a stimulus package that countless others in the government and financial sectors are convinced is not only necessary, but absolutely imperative in bringing the downwards spiral to a halt and ensuring that this cash doesn’t end up being little more than a band-aid over a wound that will hemorrhage again 5-10 years down the line. You think that giving money to businesses and small investors is the best solution to this crisis, as if the rest of society doesn’t really factor into things, and I’m saying you’re wrong. It didn’t work with Reaganomics. It won’t work now. Supply-side economics is a pie-in-the-sky ideal than never panned out, with one side, big business, benefiting, while the other side, the government and all the services it provides, gets screwed. You may not like government, but we all need it, whether you’re willing to admit that or not.
Obama’s stimulus package addresses critical needs that the country has been ignoring for years, things that require national-level initiative to accomplish. In putting off things like education and infrastructure, the only winners have been multinationals that have thanklessly packed their bags and parked jobs and profits offshore, to the further detriment of the American economy. And no, it’s not solely about avoiding corporate taxes. It’s about reaping the rewards of a system that allows you to flourish without paying back the debt. Perhaps with some of those taxes that corporations are hiding in offshore shelters, the US wouldn’t be in so much debt with other nations now, waging wars it was financially in no position to wage. Mull over that for a bit yourself.
You continue to imply that Obama’s plan is why the stock market continues to stagnate, but he has little to do with it. It’s market forces and the “hunker down” mentality that’s gripping many investors like yourself and most banks. Investors aren’t cutting back their investments because of capital gains taxes. That’s utter B.S. and you know it. The proof is in how readily investors lined up to put their money in the markets even when the capital gains tax was higher under Clinton than it is now before Bush passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.
Investors aren’t investing because they’re afraid they’re throwing their money away to a market that’s losing value do to, ironically lack of investor confidence. The drop in your stocks has virtually ZERO to do with the introduction of the stimulus plan and almost EVERYTHING to do with the sub-prime loan meltdown and the “rising dividends at any cost” mentality that has gripped the financial community of this nation for the past 30 years. Period.
Banks have choked off cash flow to the economy, even to those who have the will and ability to pay back those loans faithfully. Menawhile, banks took the stimulus cash Bush gave them and for all intents and purposes pocketed it. You already know this,so why aren’t you pissed off with the banks for their bunker mentality, instead of with Obama?
You’re pissed because Obama didn’t put things into the stimulus package that would help you personally, and what I and others here have been trying to tell you all along is that YOU aren’t the one in need of help. Not really. Yes, your investments are losing value. But that’s not Obama’s fault nor is it the fault of the stimulus package. When the economy gets back on its feet in way that benefits the greatest number of Americans, then your investments will start returning to more normal levels. But to suggest that those who are sucking wind now just deal with it until you and your “army” of independent investors ride to the rescue with tax-free capital to bolster entrepreneurism that may or may not see success for at least a year . . . Shortsighted. Selfish. Insane.
Corporations, the ones you champion so fiercely with your anti-tax arguments, are the cause of this mess. Mismanagement, unmitigated greed, and utterly insane high-risk speculative investments are to blame. Be pissed with the corporations. People can lay blame at the feet of the government for telling banks to make loans easier to obtain, but no one can blame the government for the banks’ decisions to slap ever-increasing interest rates on these loans, virtually guaranteeing default at some point down the line, even to the most responsible of borrowers. Banks made that decision. Not the feds. Be pissed with the banks before you start heaping your scorn on people who had the audacity to hope for a home or the people who foolishly thought they’d have a job to go to in the days or weeks after Lehman Bros. fell.
Incidentally, the “losers” you speak of with such disdain, are receiving only $50 billion (less than 7% of the total money being spent) in assistance from Obama’s plan in the form of foreclosure assistance designed to allow them to renegotiate their mortgages, NOT get them out of them. $50 billion to ensure that $1 trillion in loans get paid back rather than flat-out defaulted on. Not a bad investment, if you ask me. Unless of course, by “losers” you also include those who received pink slips over the past 12 months. Oh, those poor, dumb bastards for not having the foresight to see that they were going to lose their jobs when Lehman Brothers went belly-up after making the incredibly stupid and risky investment of packaging and trading debt as an asset. I suppose making efforts to help those “losers” put food on their tables here, now, today, isn’t as important as allowing your investments to rise in value so that the economy can start churning back to life in perhaps5-6 years.
Meanwhile, where were the investors when Bush forked over $350 billion to prop up financial companies to help ease investors minds? The markets kept falling and banks kept failing. I recall you were as pissed as most at what seemed to be such a blatant waste of money. And you suggested then that those businesses should simply be allowed to fail, a la a natural market death. Unfortunately, in the world of American business, mega-corporations are the name of the game, and when one part fails, it drags everything down along with it. We can thank stockholders for this dynamic, with their constant pressure on corporate boards to deliver wildly optimistic, ever-increasing, economically unsustainable growth every quarter.
But again, recall that even before that money from the feds showed, the markets were in freefall. Investors panicked and ran, as they are wont to do with things don’t go their way. And fair enough. They’re only human, after all. But eliminating corporate taxes and cutting capital gains taxes, even on the day of Lehman Brother’s meltdown, would have done very little to stem the tide, just as McCain’s proposed capital gains tax cuts would have done little to effect government revenues either in terms of losing revenue or generating new taxes with the theorized infusion of newly freed capital. Economists have looked into it and found it extremely wanting. For every benefit, there’s an unattractive minus. So you may just have to accept the tax until we find an economic model that doesn’t require it. However, when it comes to balancing capitalism with a free society based on the principle of preserving human dignity, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that new model. Doesn’t exist.
As to your suggestions for what Obama should do instead of this stimulus plan: All of them would be very good ideas if we weren’t already in the MIDST of an economic crisis. But since we are, your ideas don’t really address any of the pressing needs this country faces right now in real people terms: Homelessness, starvation, a drastic reduction in the quality of life for all Americans, not just those without jobs.
You already know my position on this. Even if we were to have eliminated the tax, say last month, there would be no appreciable improvement in the markets tomorrow. Too much damage would be done before investors found their nerve again and the markets responded quickly enough to spur companies to start hiring again. The thing about stock market meltdowns is that when they happen, they happen overnight. It’s the rebound that takes a painfully long time.
No point, especially for the corporations making $11 million a year or more that are subject to this 35% (no, not 39.5%) tax. When companies offshore their operations, it’s not because the taxes are hurting profits, but rather limiting them. They go overseas to get cheaper labor. Why should corporations be given a pass on taxes when the government those taxes support is the very system responsible for creating the environment in which American businesses thrive in the first place?
That would be wonderful if such a freeze didn’t guarantee millions of Americans and subsequently their families went without food or shelter from today until the point a year or more from now when your “no capital gains tax” scheme finally saw results.
Couldn’t agree with you more on this point. Pursuing stricter oversight will help mitigate future problems, but will it do for us now? Not a whole lot. Now that the horses have left, it’s a little late to play the “woulda’ coulda’ shoulda” game of closing the doors the barn now.
Respectfully, America hasn’t been doing this for some time now, and it has nothing to do with big government. Electronics, appliances, automobiles: These are all categories in which the US has been overtaken by foreign competition and buyouts. In order to become competitive in these fields again, the US needs to produce a workforce that is up to the task of conceiving and producing those products. As it stands, we don’t, and it only looks to get worse down the road if we don’t do something drastic to resuscitate our broken education system.
On the surface, all of your ideas would be very good if we weren’t already in the MIDST of an economic crisis. But since we are, your ideas don’t really address any of the pressing needs this country faces right now in real people terms: Homelessness, starvation, a drastic reduction in the quality of life for all Americans, not just those without jobs.
Taken out of context, sure, it might sound like I’m accusing you of being wealthy, but I wasn‘t and I’m not. I assumed you didn’t and that you made closer to the median American household income. Which tells me that the capital gains tax that you’re paying isn’t as oppressive as you make it sound. The lower your annual income, the fewer taxes you pay. If you make less than $33,000 a year, then you pay nothing. The higher your income goes, the higher the tax increases, yes, but the less oppressive it is because of the offsetting higher annual income. Your complaints remind of when some people in the 90s who were making $400,000 a year and crying for “tax relief.” The first question that popped into most Americans' minds was what exactly does someone making $400,000 a year need relief from? The point it, you aren’t suffering. If you really want to know what suffering is, start from where you are now and go to zero overnight, with no prospects around the corner and see how that feels.
As I said before, the very fact that you have money to invest in the first place, and that you even still are able to see those investments rise or fall in value at all, suggests you don’t fit in the category of people who actually need help. Unless, of course, you’ve recently been fired. Or foreclosed upon. Then you’d qualify. But you don’t, by your own admission. You have gainful employment, you’re a responsible borrower, and you’ve maintained healthy economic habits your entire adult life. You don’t need the help. But 11 million Americans do, a number that’s growing daily. They need help now, not in 5-years time when the markets start to sluggishly respond to fair weather investors who have finally crawled out of their bunkers to start injecting capital into the markets when they think things are safe for them again.
That you stayed in the market during the implosion is a testament to your patience and fortitude in the toughest of times, but you’re representative of the kind of investors that the economy was sorely lacking back in September and desperately needs more of now. If your investments were sound before the crisis, then they will be again. You have to sit tight and be patient. Investment demands this. And while you’re waiting, keep in mind that while you aren’t suffering alone, you most definitely aren’t suffering the most.
Back to top