Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AGDee

At the same time, we play this blame game, even if it's a cyclical inevitability and I think that blame game hurts us more than anything. We also tend to want a quick fix for EVERYTHING (from weight loss to health care to the economy) so we keep expecting someone to come in and fix it for us when the reality is that there may not be a fix. Which party is going to win on a platform of "We can't fix it so deal with it"?

As much as people are reveling in lower property taxes around here, it also means fewer services. Fewer police, returning to "pay per call" firefighters (who are slower to respond resulting in more property loss and loss of life or injury), less salt on the roads, more potholes, etc. I WANT my city services to continue, even if it means that those of us who can pay more in property taxes have to do that. I don't want to be put on hold when I call 911. I don't want to slide on black ice because they can't afford more salt (they only salted intersections and curved roads this winter and it was a noticeable difference). Eliminate waste? Absolutely, because there is some everywhere. But a total tax holiday? No way! It seems that could MORE costly than the bailout plans.

Dee, I agree.

For everyone:

Blame is an indication of "rationalization" of a problem rather than trying to understand the root causes.

I don't know what the root causes are other that what the media tells me. It does look like greed, like the grasshopper and the ant story... All summer long, the ants toiled to save for the winter, while the grasshopper played and was unconcerned about the change in the season. Fall came, and the grasshopper partied. Then the first blow of winter's chill, the ants survived because they prepared...

At best, you can corral ALL your IRA accounts, and roll them over to the new IRA's (includes Roth's) with a 6% return "grandfathered life insurance" that minimizes the loss as "insurance", without a health check, right now it is tax free to borrow out before aging into use. ROI amounts do vary.

If you have any capital (>$2500 these days), Cramer is saying buy as many energy/gas stocks, bonds and some manufacturing, even major commodities, like sugar cane, sorghum, etc. as well as blue chips if you can afford it. I would get into Food Coop/Farmer's Market that ship what's in season to you as season's change. If you live near farms, shop Kosher/Halal meats. If you can fish, get the aquaculture fish. You ain't eating Live Maine Lobster, but, you can eat Trout...

Seriously, even my father is bartering these days. If you have a service you can barter, do it. They have a Craigslist section. Flatten your energy bill, if you haven't already, cut cells phones off, or have bundled services. Dayum buy bootlegs, start living on the underground.

And I read, somewhere, on the internet, which could be wrong, if you are facing foreclosure, stay in your house before the police show up to evict you. Ignore the notices, do what you can as long as you can. Pride is not going to feed your family, seriously!

I would not believe any of the major media markets today because they are in the business of presenting news, mostly bad and negative these days. I am not talking about HRPL news. But we can all improve on our discernment on what is right and wrong. We do not have a loss of food, water, etc. Our infrastructure long neglected can use upgrades. Job losses are due to decaying businesses and structures that supported the "grasshopper's or locust's way of life" rather than the ants' which required us to work collaboratively for some time.

KsigKid:

That said...I don't think throwing money at it is the answer, and I have faith that the market (and big businesses) will self-correct at some point.

I'm not trying to come at this from some ivory tower; I have some family members who are in pretty bad shape right now.

KsigKid--

I wish throwing money would solve this problem, but leaving it to do nothing, will not self-correct it either. Because this problem is a "cancer" and we have to aggressively treat it if we want to survive as a country. If we fail to try our best to make a difference with this "patient" in who is in "active dying" mode, what's the point with having the United States? Maybe we will be wasting our money and owe the planets for our debt, but I personally rather try to make a difference, especially for those military service personnel who are coming back in boxes... For whatever it is that makes us American, that is what make it worth the effort for me. JMO...

[UGAalum94]

I'm going to say it: while there's a great deal of truth in the idea that the blame game doesn't help much, it still seems a little rich for people to make this appeal in regard to Obama after everything under the sun that Bush was blamed for.

I've said before and I'll say it again, it's way too early in Obama's Presidency to suggest that any of his policies as President are failures.

However, at some point, it's going to be as appropriate to regard him as being as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, as it was to hold Bush responsible. I don't remember those of you posting this now ever making the same general argument when it was Bush being blamed.

ETA: personally, I think I'd be inclined to allow that some Presidents just have more than their fair share of crap happening during their terms than others. I think this is going to apply to Obama, but if the economy recovers during his Presidency, he'll largely receive the credit too.

On AGDee's point: I don't think you can just fail to take in taxes and quit providing all public services. That's just crazy talk. Is your ex-husband an anarchist?

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the people who seem to be able to afford to pay more taxes really can if they are also supposed to contribute to an economic recovery partially based on consumption. I think some of us also want some evidence that we're going to get something for the money. And no one can know that. A lot of the initial bailouts have just led to requests for more money. Others apparently involved enough red tape to hamper their effectiveness.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I'm going to say it: while there's a great deal of truth in the idea that the blame game doesn't help much, it still seems a little rich for people to make this appeal in regard to Obama after everything under the sun that Bush was blamed for.

I've said before and I'll say it again, it's way too early in Obama's Presidency to suggest that any of his policies as President are failures.

However, at some point, it's going to be as appropriate to regard him as being as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, as it was to hold Bush responsible. I don't remember those of you posting this now ever making the same general argument when it was Bush being blamed.

I agree. Once again, people have conveniently changed the rules.

I read this article today http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9...re-his-wedding and some of the comments were random as hell because people began debating whether Obama, Bush, or Clinton were to blame for the economy.

[AGDee]

My main complaints about Bush were related to pouring our military resources into Iraq instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his trade policies and his stances on social issues (embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc). Of those, the economy is somewhat related to trade policies and the spending in Iraq (I'm not convinced we would have needed to spend quite as much in Afghanistan/Pakistan seeking out Bin Laden and his cronies as we have spent in Iraq). While I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, I'm not convinced that it needed to be the priority it became.

My ex-husband is not an anarchist but he hates paying money for anything, even stuff he tells me he'll pay half for like my daughter's varsity jacket and Spamalot tickets (which he attended with me and the kids!). He just hates paying anybody anything, unless it's golf or big screen tvs. Since he works for the steel industry, he's pretty panicked about his job right now and he was really ticked off with Bush when Bush wouldn't put tariffs on foreign steel. Then again, his once American steel company was bought by a Russian company, which is a strange thing in and of itself. As an American company, they only provided steel for Ford. As a Russian company, they are 50% auto industry and 50% commodities so the part of the stimulus package that addresses infrastructure could actually help them because steel is needed for bridge/road improvements, etc. He also rarely thinks for himself and spouts off stupid things like that. Once I point out the issues with the ideas he spouts off, he will admit that maybe it's not the best idea. He's truly a horrible debater...lol. He even wavered on abortion when my daughter asked him what would happen if she got pregnant before she finished college. In that case, it would be ok if she got an abortion, but not for anybody else or any other reason. In short, he's selfish and just wants to know "What about me?"

I hear a lot of people saying "Where is my bailout?" when they are still employed, can afford to stay in their house, etc. HELLO! You don't need one! You're ok! I do see great benefit in not having too many vacant houses in a neighborhood. There are 4 on my street right now, including the one right next door. It's being auctioned on the 16th. People have been stopping by the house and I have been going out to meet them I want friendly neighbors. I want real people to buy it, not some investment company who will eventually flip it. I don't like having an abandoned house next door. When I bought my house, the house on the other side was abandoned and the grass grew feet before the city would come to mow it. There were rats over there. During the blackout of 2003, there were people around it. The demand for copper is so high that break ins are happening and people are stealing the copper out of the abandoned houses. It's not good to have lots of abandoned houses. I'm ok, I can pay my mortgage (as long as I have a job, which seems pretty secure so far). I don't need a tax cut, I'm living comfortably enough.

I really think that the whole root of this problem is greed. We are a wasteful and frivolous society. We have been irresponsible with credit and with our spending. I'm not exempt from that... I was in that trap too and dug out when my mom passed away because she was a saver and a wise investor. I'm bound and determined to not get into that trap again. Yes, my living room carpet is old. Sure, I'd love to have a big screen TV and to replace the loveseat that the dog ripped up, which is covered with a blanket these days. I'm waiting until I have the cash to do those things now. In the past, I would have charged those things without a thought. Credit cards have become "emergency only" things, like if the furnace were to go this winter and they are the first priority for paying off.

Interestingly, Suze Orman, who always said "pay off the credit cards" is now saying "Pay only the minimum on your credit cards for now and save your cash". The last I heard her speak, she said that as people are paying off credit cards, their credit limits are being reduced or the accounts are being closed by the bank, leaving people without that emergency backup. She has said that all the rules are different this year and you need to make sure you have cash. A friend of mine experienced something similar. She has kept up with her bills, except for a couple months last year when she had major surgery and was late with a few credit card payments. She realized her interest rate was up to something insane like 29% and called to have them lower it because she had paid down a lot, was making more than the minimum payment and her last late payment was about 10 months ago. The response? They said "Oh, you had late payments, we have to close your account"

Ok, this ended up being another novel, sorry for that. I'm quite preoccupied with the economy. I have heard experts saying we are going to become a service economy and all manufacturing in the US will go away. I don't see how we can survive being only consumers and not providers of goods in a global economy.

Did this whole problem start when we got rid of the gold standard? I wish I had studied economics more.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My main complaints about Bush were related to pouring our military resources into Iraq instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his trade policies and his stances on social issues (embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc). Of those, the economy is somewhat related to trade policies and the spending in Iraq (I'm not convinced we would have needed to spend quite as much in Afghanistan/Pakistan seeking out Bin Laden and his cronies as we have spent in Iraq). While I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, I'm not convinced that it needed to be the priority it became.

.

I completely agree with you about the military resources issue. The amount of money that was spent was absolutely absurd. They knew it. They didn't care. What really got me was, as you said, when Saddam became the priority. To be honest, I completely disagreed with their decisions concerning him.

[UGAalum94]

This is pretty far from anything related to the topic of the thread, but I occasionally fall into the "where's my bailout" line of thought. Not really sincerely, but simply because I feel like the government is creating incentives for bad or irresponsible behavior and penalties for people who, so far, have demonstrated they're more likely to pull their own weight.

AGDee, I think some of my differences with you on this point have to do with your having a fundamentally more positive view of human nature and human behavior. Most of the time, you seem to assume that people who want or need help honestly tried their best to meet their obligations but through limited fault of their own have now become unable to. That line of thought more supports the idea that it becomes the moral duty of others to try to help them, and the government's job to kind of provide guarantees of this help.

On the other hand I see some evidence that the current mess reflects a lot of behavior by people who approached things very selfishly and incautiously, who sought to get the most they could rather than what they could safely afford (or morally or ethically deserved, in the case of money managers who made a lot of money losing money for investors or CEOs who screwed their companies), government officials who were more than happy to personally profit from a failure to regulate and turned a blind eye when things were good, who all now turn to people who have been plugging away at steady jobs, living in modest houses, paying taxes, basically trying to carry their own weight, and ask for the second group to subsidize the bad outcomes because of the behavior of the people in the first group.

Oh, hell no.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

AGDee, I think some of my differences with you on this point have to do with your having a fundamentally more positive view of human nature and human behavior. Most of the time, you seem to assume that people who want or need help honestly tried their best to meet their obligations but through limited fault of their own have now become unable to. That line of thought more supports the idea that it becomes the moral duty of others to try to help them, and the government's job to kind of provide guarantees of this help.

On the other hand I see some evidence that the current mess reflects a lot of behavior by people who approached things very selfishly and incautiously, who sought to get the most they could rather than what they could safely afford (or morally or ethically deserved, in the case of money managers who made a lot of money losing money for investors or CEOs who screwed their companies), government officials who were more than happy to personally profit from a failure to regulate and turned a blind eye when things were good, who all now turn to people who have been plugging away at steady jobs, living in modest houses, paying taxes, basically trying to carry their own weight, and ask for the second group to subsidize the bad outcomes because of the behavior of the people in the first group.

Oh, hell no.

I did say that I think the root of the whole problem is greed, so I'm not sure I'm saying that we're basically good and all tried to do the right thing. I see three groups of people in foreclosure. The first group don't have jobs or have had extenuating circumstances (like my neighbor who had breast cancer and then lost her husband) and therefore, can't pay their mortgage. Some of them have paid hundreds of thousands on their mortgages over the years but can't pay it now. So, even if they only owe $20K on their original $150K mortgage, they can't make the payment and the bank gets the house. The second group got into bad mortgages ... interest only or low interest to begin with, with the plan to refinance as the low interest terms of that mortgage came to an end. However, since their housing value has dropped more than 30%, they can't get a new mortgage so they are stuck paying exorbitant interest. I don't know who should "shoulder" the blame for those. I don't think people intentionally said "I'm going to buy a bigger house than I can afford". I think they thought they'd afford it, that property values would continue to rise, etc. The third group are people who have found jobs in other states, have had their homes on the market for over a year and can't sell it. The result of all this is that home values continue to drop at an alarming rate. So even if you had 20% down when you bought your home, you now owe more than it's worth. Whose responsibility was it to predict that home values would drop this much and you should have put at least 50% down on your house 5 years ago if you wanted to have 80% equity today? I don't know. I hear experts say we were in a housing bubble and it was bound to burst, but I don't know how we were supposed to know that. I guess I think some of that stuff should've been regulated.

Do I think we should be bailing out the CEOs of corporations who were making 7 or 8 figures? No. However, shit rolls downhill and it's seriously affecting the people who were paying everything and staying on top of things because they don't have jobs now. The vast majority of these companies that are failing are the middle class working folks, not the CEOs. The actions of the first group are seriously affecting the people in your second group. You think the guys who were making 8 figures are losing their homes? No. They've made more in a couple years than the rest of will make in our lifetimes. I don't see the bailouts as bailing out those individuals. I see it as bailing out society as a whole. I think that's our major difference.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

KsigKid--

I wish throwing money would solve this problem, but leaving it to do nothing, will not self-correct it either. Because this problem is a "cancer" and we have to aggressively treat it if we want to survive as a country. If we fail to try our best to make a difference with this "patient" in who is in "active dying" mode, what's the point with having the United States? Maybe we will be wasting our money and owe the planets for our debt, but I personally rather try to make a difference, especially for those military service personnel who are coming back in boxes... For whatever it is that makes us American, that is what make it worth the effort for me. JMO...

But, in a general sense...if you're spending money that doesn't make any difference, and only postpones problems (or pushes those problems on to further generations), is it really worth it?

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But, in a general sense...if you're spending money that doesn't make any difference, and only postpones problems (or pushes those problems on to further generations), is it really worth it?

I don't know how to generalize this situation. Everyone who is undergoing this loss has an individual story.

While the Zombie Banks will take all our money, some of the stim pkg money will make a difference making it worthwhile.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I don't know how to generalize this situation. Everyone who is undergoing this loss has an individual story.

While the Zombie Banks will take all our money, some of the stim pkg money will make a difference making it worthwhile.

I'm not trying to marginalize what people are going through by speaking in a more general sense. I have close family members and friends who are going through a lot right now, between the loss of their jobs, losing value on their homes, and losing most of their retirement funds. So, please don't misunderstand my statements to mean that I don't see and understand the difficult situations that many people in this country are facing.

I meant it more from a cost/benefit perspective. I just don't want to see a situation where the government over-extends itself trying to help the immediate problem, and doesn't look at long-term issues. So, for example; if the government is over-extended on the current stimulus package, does that mean higher taxes for people who can't afford them? Does that mean that current benefit programs will get cut down the road? Will we be trading a temporary relief for long-term economic recovery?

I'm no economist, and I obviously don't have the answer to these problems. I understand the other side of the argument, and I'll admit I have a bias towards less government involvement if at all necessary.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm no economist, and I obviously don't have the answer to these problems. I understand the other side of the argument, and I'll admit I have a bias towards less government involvement if at all necessary.

And if one is a small government type, there's just more of a general concern that in some areas the "stimulus" is really just more spending and federal government creep. It seems much harder to remove something once it's been established than it does just never to start.

I suppose one upside to the various things in the stimulus that don't seem directly economically urgent to me is that by being in this package rather than in the general budget, there's a better chance the funding or programs will be regarded as being a one time or short term thing.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I meant it more from a cost/benefit perspective. I just don't want to see a situation where the government over-extends itself trying to help the immediate problem, and doesn't look at long-term issues. So, for example; if the government is over-extended on the current stimulus package, does that mean higher taxes for people who can't afford them? Does that mean that current benefit programs will get cut down the road? Will we be trading a temporary relief for long-term economic recovery?

I'm no economist, and I obviously don't have the answer to these problems. I understand the other side of the argument, and I'll admit I have a bias towards less government involvement if at all necessary.

I am not an economist either, but, let's use our best judgment to make an informed decision...

Who knows what the future may hold? The best we can do is to have plans for them. The neat thing about plans is that they change, often... And as I have gotten older, hayle, all my plans have totally changed... The issue is the magnitude of the change. Yes, it is huge. Yes, the government may be over-extending itself. IMHO, there is a "silver lining" or pay-off in the end. Not only are we changing in philosophy and action, and this is metamorphosis... We are beginning to molt into our Chrysalis and afterward, we will NEVER be the what we were before. You, yourself might not want to change, but you have to. EVERYTHING must change, so goes the song...

I guess I am not fearful of changing anymore... And who knows, it might get a lot worse... But, what do we do, when we fall/fail? If we don't change, we will die, this country will die. As painful as it is, we have to do it. Maybe the process would be different if McCain won. But even he knows things have to change, too. And what's amazing, is McCain pretty much is serving the role to ask hard questions, respectfully and he is being fair about it, IMO. Which to me, shows his character as a person, a legislature and statesmen. If I was in his position, I would ask the same questions too.

Does President Obama listen to someone like Senator McCain? I don't think the media shows it, but you better believe if Senator McCain had some major issues (BIG issues) with the entire stim package, that piece of legislation would be dead in the water. And when I say major, I mean, major. But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. Then, President Obama responded by thanking him first. Then the media presented the cost overruns of something decided by the previous admin...

So, IMHO, it shows us that the United States is governed by 3 equal branches and there is more inclusion in the decisions that will shape US policy in the future. Whereas, before, the registered voters allowed our politicians free reign for so long.

If there is something anyone protest, contact your legislator or Whitehouse office. Start a letter writing campaign, vote your person out of office, etc. Raise funds to make the change more reflective to your ideals... Even serve yourself on a campaign. This is what inclusive politics is all about...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. ...

I guess I looked at that differently. I don't think his motives were in the right place on that issue.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I guess I looked at that differently. I don't think his motives were in the right place on that issue.

Oh Senator McCain is definitely NOT drinking the President Obama crunk juice, but, all of them are politicians and that is something "they" do...

Aside from that, I just learned that due to too much de-regulation, many of the big banks invested their money in derivatives. Derivatives are very risky investment tools. While you can make a TON of money, which we saw, you can lose it faster... In order to make that kind of money to invest, risky loans were made to people clueless about the printed paper. Then when the balloon was made, if you jumped out quickly, you were probably okay. But if you tried to back out within the last 2 years, you were left holding the bag. It was a shakedown.

Now, while President Bush 2 was not told to correct this kind of investments, President Clinton didn't do it either... And this kind of investment was made on the tail end of President Reagan... So, it took roughly 22 years for us to crash! That's like a Ecstasy-Crystal Meth rush mixed with a little crack. Just nuts. And it unknown if President Obama will smoke that glass pee pee or not...

Folks like money, fast... Instant gratification... We have got to have an "intervention" on this one...

This ain't the Drinky Crow Show...

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I am not an economist either, but, let's use our best judgment to make an informed decision...

Who knows what the future may hold? The best we can do is to have plans for them. The neat thing about plans is that they change, often... And as I have gotten older, hayle, all my plans have totally changed... The issue is the magnitude of the change. Yes, it is huge. Yes, the government may be over-extending itself. IMHO, there is a "silver lining" or pay-off in the end. Not only are we changing in philosophy and action, and this is metamorphosis... We are beginning to molt into our Chrysalis and afterward, we will NEVER be the what we were before. You, yourself might not want to change, but you have to. EVERYTHING must change, so goes the song...

I guess I am not fearful of changing anymore... And who knows, it might get a lot worse... But, what do we do, when we fall/fail? If we don't change, we will die, this country will die. As painful as it is, we have to do it. Maybe the process would be different if McCain won. But even he knows things have to change, too. And what's amazing, is McCain pretty much is serving the role to ask hard questions, respectfully and he is being fair about it, IMO. Which to me, shows his character as a person, a legislature and statesmen. If I was in his position, I would ask the same questions too.

Does President Obama listen to someone like Senator McCain? I don't think the media shows it, but you better believe if Senator McCain had some major issues (BIG issues) with the entire stim package, that piece of legislation would be dead in the water. And when I say major, I mean, major. But Senator McCain was the one to ask the question about the Presidential helicopters. Then, President Obama responded by thanking him first. Then the media presented the cost overruns of something decided by the previous admin...

So, IMHO, it shows us that the United States is governed by 3 equal branches and there is more inclusion in the decisions that will shape US policy in the future. Whereas, before, the registered voters allowed our politicians free reign for so long.

If there is something anyone protest, contact your legislator or Whitehouse office. Start a letter writing campaign, vote your person out of office, etc. Raise funds to make the change more reflective to your ideals... Even serve yourself on a campaign. This is what inclusive politics is all about...

I agree with a large part of this. I mean, although I think friction between the branches is necessary to effective governance (checks and balances and all that), it's also gratifying when people can reach across party lines when necessary. It's one of the reasons I have a lot of respect for someone like Senator Kennedy, who is able to work with Republicans on a whole host of issues.

It's also good to see you understand the McCain questions. I think it's too easy for people to play partisan politics, and not recognize that there are questions to be asked about the stimulus plan, questions to be asked about the long term plans with respect to economic recovery. I do think that a certain measure of both McCain's question and Obama's response were about the show, about the politics of the situation. At the end of the day, I think we all recognize there was a bit of political theatre to both of their statements.

I do agree, though, that getting involved is extremely worthwhile. I've supported candidates on the local level (although CT and MA aren't the most Republican-friendly states), and I fully expect to support my candidate of choice when/if he runs for President in 2012.