Paul Krugman praises President Obama's new budget proposal
By John Amato Saturday Feb 28, 2009 7:00pmPaul Krugman's latest column praises President Obama's new budget big-time. I haven't seen Paul that excited in a long while.
Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.
The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That’s not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it’s an impressive start. And Mr. Obama plans to pay for health reform, not just with higher taxes on the affluent, but by putting a halt to the creeping privatization of Medicare, eliminating overpayments to insurance companies.
{snip}And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.But I don’t blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget. There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.
Login or Register to post comments.
This post has been up for a while. Maybe no one wants to touch it?
A V.A.T. in America? Ought to make (some) heads explode.
that isn't a big break from the past, oh sure it's for better nobler reasons but in the end we are destroying the dollar like never before. But I have said all this before here, anyone thinking this economy is going to get better in 2010 is living on Fantasy Island.
Ron Paul Got right - the FED is the culprit!
The truth and part of the solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQlB3f9Al4
Peter Schiff did too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiIYkFXUhHs
Unfortunately Obama appointed the foxes to watch the hen house
Details at the bottom of the post I link.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/p...
I'm sure many people here though will root for this plan until it has proven itself utterly wrong.
Ron Paul is nuts.
Peter Schiff is a Fat Cat who would like everyone to buy gold.
Then his gold would be up in value.
He keeps prattling about the same thing over and over.
Funny how Peter schiff was right before he was a fat cat, C&L admitted Peter Schiff was right
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/peter-sc...
but now he's a fat cat because it doesn't fit the mold of the Obama plan? So Jim Rogers, Marc Faber, Robert Kiyosaki, Max Keiser, Richard Duncan, etc. are too.
You're just saying that because you don't have a real argument. I have yet to be proven wrong in my worn out talking points. No Ron Paul IS right, he's been right on the economy for a long time so I keep bringing them up. The flaws in Keynesian economics will be exposed soon enough. Just remember some here tried to say.
You guys are listening to the crooks! Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner are largely responsible for this mess but now they are somehow the experts to listen to? Think about that.Bernanke? Are you going to listen to him?!? He's for the stimulus. I remind you Bernanke has been wrong about every thing for years!
Why would you take advise someone who has been that wrong?
with some brains?! Well kudos for coming prepared with a few links to support your comments, but you really ought to stop drinking the kool-aid so deeply. Take a look at Zfacts.com and decide which class of morons you want working on the problem?
Those are the same links that VegasRage brings to every argument. He seems to think that if we all clap our hands while chanting, "Hayek," all of our economic woes will go away.
Go through the archives and tell me I'm wrong.
down. We have a conservative that is using at least one of his brain cells without the obvious overture of self-interest. This is a rare and wondrous creature that through precious care could grow up one day into a real thinker (i.e. liberal).
Oh my hopes grow daily!
Soooo, back off punks, he only has one cell working after all that right wing kool-aid and besides, I think he is protected....
LMAO! I have never prescribed to such a thing, BTW my position is not a Republican position, remember they wanted a stimulus too. I am against deficit spending and stimulus. My position has been investor rule #1 don't catch a falling knife! It doesn't work, the market needs to crash, the dead need to be picked through, and new competent money needs to flow in to their failed bones.
So far this has proven true, all of the FED's efforts to bail-out and quantitatively ease the economy have failed to prop the markets up or prevent company failures. It’s happening in front of your face and yet you back what is obviously failing. The stimulus is no different it’s not going to stop this market from crashing; it’s called a correction for a reason. Now we have Zombie banks that have essentially failed but have been allowed to exist and no one has faith in them any longer, the assets they hold can’t be properly valuated because they too have been spared and no investor in their right mind will invest in cadaver assets.
A lot of people could have been put back to work by now if the government had stayed out of it and allowed companies to fail as they should. The government could have tightened the belt like it needs to as any person or entity should when it is broke. It could have given incentives and individuals without spending hardly anything. Obama is trying to save the same slobs Bush took us to war to defend, remember Bush’s pro-war speech about “to preserve our way of life”, who’s life? Why the uber-rich of course. The same people under Clinton (Rubin, Summers, and Geithner) aided in the formation of Citigroup by helping to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that lead to this crash also happened to be the same people Obama picked to fix this mess, what a co-inky-dink!
With the banks failures the surviving banks could have bought the loans for pennies on the dollar and government could have incentivized them reduce their principle value down to foreclosure prices where the market is at (they will right off this debt anyways) and set up new loans at lower rates and principle amounts. The politicians are in a knee-jerk reaction to do something and are throwing fuel on the fire with good intentions.
In the end businesses they tried to save will have failed and our national debt will be at bare minimum 2x as much as it is today. Our long term obligations will be $60 to $100 trillion. There is little chance we will reverse course on our national debt, it is highly likely we will default which can easily lead to war. The government plans will yield good results but most of it will only be realized 10 to 20 years down the road and we will be so far into debt we won’t be able to service the interest.
Why do I keep making the same tired points? Because pro-stimulus people have no answer! No defense to basic crucial questions such as:
You don't have answers to these questions, nor does Roubini or Krugman! All they say is what should work without qualification or explanation, I read their positions often. You guys need to be more concerned about these things.
If you read this with an open mind you can see I'm presenting solutions, they just are not popular ones.
I addressed this very bogus chart in this post
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/obamas-sum...
the GDP, the CPI, and many other so called accurate measures of the economy are fluffy BS, Obama even acknolleged in his speech last week no longer can we aford to use false indicators to make everything seem rosy, the GDP is one of those rosy indicators.
Also look at my post above to Alice X, you guys are listening to the foxes guarding the hen house.
BTW I get hit by both Dem's and Rep's because I slug both sides of the isle often.
All the while continuing the empire building projects of the US/PNAC gang.
Iraq, continues
Afghanistan, surging
military budgets, increased (just not as much)
continuing with numerous BushCo policies.
and lets not forget the million+ Iraqis that the US has killed. But that's just a few eggs to crack when you are building a Empire.
Freedom is still on the march,Liberating anybody in it's way
A broke-assed empire is still broke.
"lets not forget the million+ Iraqis that the US has killed" Maybe a recount is in order.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?i...
except the part where you mention million+ Iraqis. Unfortunately, a mess this big takes way too long to clean up. Keep the faith and keep up the pressure. We will get there....
Guess Rush isn't the only one that doesn't like Obama's budget.
http://displacedgenius.blogspot.com/
I don't know what your point is by pointing us to your blog other than to show off another site spouting false information? Don't worry, I posted a comment to let you know how absurd your thoughts are.
Research people, do some freaking research.
Sigh, I need to have more patience with the mentally incapable and lazy.
A concept that liberals understand: truth is relevant. Apparently what you consider false information is truth to others. I sure don't think Krugman was looking at this with an objective perspective. Sounds more like a 60's style love in that reporting. Just the truth according to me.
in economics?
Is the gift that keeps on giving.
but Al Gore also got a Nobel prize. Apparently knowledge, education or honesty have nothing to do with it. More like the award for best propagandist. I'm sure there are an equal or greater number of experts that hold opposing views.
Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize is a source of shame for you? Because he was what, pointing out that global change might have significant repercussions to the world? You did get the notice that even Republicans are buying into the whole "global climate change" right? Did you see that little old piece of ice float into the ocean? It was the size of Connecticut? Yeah, we liberals are all nuts....
There are differing views. But the planet is getting warmer. If you haven't noticed, or maybe you just choose to ignore it, but the glaciers at the Antarctica have melted to such a degree, that the climate in Patagonia is much higher now. The skin cancer rates are the highest in the world. But hey, who gives a shit. right?
Do you think the industrial revolution and the combustion engine have contributed to pollution?
I suppose you have no idea why Gore got a Nobel prize. And I know his Nobel Prize just griped the asses of everyone like you. Because you don't get it and prefer your ignorance.
But we weren't discussing Gore's Nobel or even Krugman's. When'd you get yours? Or even your degree in economics? How much reading do you do on the subject? None? Thought so.
you find the random rantings of a blogger more truthful than, oh I don't know, the opinion of a professional in the field of economics? And you think I am the one with a "fact" problem?
Sigh, you really are testing my patience for the mentally incapable and lazy.
Once again Rick, the random rantings of a conservative individual are better than the dialogue being forced on us by the likes of Rush, Hannity and O Reilly. These guys are the ultimate blog whores when you think about it. Throwing money behind the promotion of their blogs, repeating their points over and over until liberals define conservative individuals only by the memes they hear from those shrill blow horns, not from the conservative individuals themselves.
Does that mean I'm trying to make you a conservative or promote their views? No. I want to see people talking again to each other, not through the media. We have a medium to do it.
Again I thank you for leaving a comment at my friend's site. I want him to hear progressive viewpoints. I'm tired of liberal and conservative individuals that define one or the other as out to destroy the country, or make a sweeping generalization that they are "mentally incapable or lazy". There are great, productive individuals behind some of the screen names and comments that we disagree with. Give them your substance, out outright dismissal or personal attacks.
That is not my blog. Thank you for leaving a comment there. You are engaging a conservative in debate and exchanging dialogue. He'll learn from it and expand on his content to better defend his position OR learn from your input and change his opinion. That's what the internet is all about. That is why my post is quite harmless. His commentary received on comment that agreed and one that disagreed. What is wrong with that?
If you look at my comments since I've been on this site, they are predominately progressive. The site I pointed to is a friends site. We've been friends since before the internet. Is it possible for a progressive and a conservative to be friends? We are, and there are few places we agree on politics.
Many of the links to Rush, Hannity and O Reilly have less substance, what sort of research is behind those?
In a startling ambitious budget message, President Barack Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to the American Right not only by tying the current economic crisis to the recklessness of the past eight years under George W. Bush but by tracing it back further to the anti-regulatory, anti-labor and anti-government policies of Ronald Reagan.
Obama even made a glancing reference to that formulation in his preamble to the budget message. “We need to put tired ideologies aside, and ask not whether our government is too big or too small, or whether it is the problem or the solution, but whether it is working for the American people,” Obama said.
I like the $650 billion for health care. It is a start towards a single payer.
I like a carbon tax.
I like reversing the creeping privatization of medicare.
I like the Fat Cat tax increase and I definitely like Hedge Fund Managers paying real income tax rates rather than fictional Cap Gains.
I like the credit on the EIC. Bless them, it is a pittance.
I don't like the MIC
I don't like $750 billion for the Banksters, if it is needed. Pay all those credit default swaps at face value (a la little Timmy and his buddies) and you will need $15 trillion.
I like doing research.
you are, as usual, thorough.
the failing economy is mainly caused by bankrupting the middle-class. killing the golden goose.
As 2/3 of your economy is based on consumer spending, if the middle class isn't shopping, things will dry up very quickly. Why is that hard for conservatives to understand?
Mr. Spock from Star Trek ( damn that man has some ears! Who needs earmarks with ears that big? ;-) snark) and the main character from the movie "Dave" starring Kevin Kline--not the knotty stuff,but by the fact that he wants to at least make a good show of putting some honor and decency in the White House.
And a thesaurus. Dont forget the thesaurus. ;-)
Pull the string on a republican and he'll say "small business, small business." That should be easy enough to ignore.
I'm surprised to see Krugman underestimating the huge wealth accumulated by the rich. We will not need any tax increases on the middle class. The rich have enough to pay off the entire national debt and fulfill our wildest liberal fantasies. If it sounds unfair to extract that out of them, you haven't been watching them gorging at the trough the last 30 years. Picture a massive bloated sack of money bursting at the seams like Jabba the Hutt. Prick them with a pin and watch all the blubber blurp out and feed the rest of us.
I'm not sure feeding from a pricked Jabba the Hutt is that palpable.
Somehow the word "spooge" came to mind! (LOL eeeeeeewwww!)
...um - palatable. (damn spell check)
" The rich have enough to pay off the entire national debt and fulfill our wildest liberal fantasies"
Redistribution of wealth...the American way. Jeez, I wonder where this has been tried before, and how did that work out?
allowing the gap between the rich and poor to grow unabated happened. Historically, it ends in a "let them eat cake" comment followed by a lot of blood.
As another poster put it, one step back for 5% of the population and one step forward for 95% of the population isn't necessarily a bad thing.
you are advocating socialism. Equal results for all. If not it sure sounds like it. Lets punish those damned rich folks for working hard and realizing the American dream. Sounds a bit like sour grapes.
Because now, what your party created, we need to fix.
I suppose you think we should just shut up and be nice little lemmings.
Yer still fulla shit.
You are sorely misinformed.
This happens when you do not do research before you shoot off your mouth, which you have been doing a lot of. You should search out some of my other replies.
Here is my last reply on Carter, inflation of the 70s-80s and the recession of '81-'82.
Socialism is about equalizing the opportunity that every citizen has.
Equal opportunity for the same quality of Public Education.
Equal opportunity for the same quality of health care.
Equal rights under the law.
There are no guarantees on the results. That is up to the individuals effort and ability.
If you are a Fat Cat and you want more, pay for it yourself.
The Communists in their brand of Socialism guarantee the results regardless of effort or lack thereof. That makes them more than disquieting to the Fat Cats who the Communists then proceed to dispatch without further ado.
This conflict leads them to totalitarianism. I sorry about that. They are societies that feed, care and educate their children. I don't see that we do such a great job, so explain again to me how advanced we are!
I am a Socialist, I do not apologize to anyone for the fact. In my world the Fat Cats keep their heads but not all of their money.
Don't press me on that matter. The Fat Cats have been running amok.
Anyone making over ten million dollars a year will have a lot tax on their income tax in my world.
Besides most Fat Cats are born with silver spoons in their mouths. That is the first problem.
What you get later on if it is fair and square, that is different.
You call yourself a conservative. Are you a Fat Cat?
What are you conserving, the divine right of Kings?
I AM advocating socialism.
People in this country have been subjected to 60 years of anti socialist propaganda by the war mongers and profiteers who saw it as the road to their personal enrichment in the ever increasing expansion of the Military Industrial Complex.
The MIC, the successor to the WPA. The difference being it was meant to project and secure the Fat Cats empires.
Prime example being the Bush Crime Family, the Carlyle group, Cheney's Haliburton and many more MIC welfare monkeys who put the country, and the world, through hell to fatten their pockets. Disgusting selfishness from these republican crooks.
:D
you know, i really hate it when you show off your massive intellect and thoughtful research. will you be my friend?
:-)
I sincerely appreciate your candor. I completely disagree with you but at least your honest. I'm more than a little tired of having socialism sneak in the back door. I will gladly debate you on the merits of socialism, I just hate it when people are dishonest about their intent. If it is Obama's intention to socialize this country, then say so. Lets have an open and honest discussion on it. What the people decide is binding but they cannot make an informed decision when no one is being honest. For your honesty, I truly respect you.
Then that makes you a socialist. More so then the rest of us.
I do not take you to mean you have a negative income tax.
You have withholding throughout the year but it is more than you need to have withheld.
At the end of the year you get it back.
We DO NOT have a negative income tax although that idea has been floated.
That is a true Socialist agenda item. I doubt that we will ever see that.
At it is, you can be poor enough to pay zero income tax, but anything over $400 and you pay FICA.
You will not be living very well and yet you will be paying Social security tax which pays benefits to recipients today.
Some of whom are living very well.
The Earned Income Credit helps people below the poverty line, about $12k off the top of my head, who can receive a maximum $500 credit. They still are paying some tax, even though it is FICA.
Obama has increased that credit.
I am not advocating socialism, I am advocating that the continued growth in the gap between the wealthy and the poor funded by our tax dollars be stopped. You call that socialism, I call it, um, what's that word... oh yeah, fair.
For a minority of "fat cats" they already pay a majority of the taxes. It is not your tax dollars as much as it is their tax dollars. I'm not advocating giving them anything of yours. Just letting them keep a little of theirs.
You're a liar.
It's people in your income bracket that pay the most.
FACT: Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate of taxes than he does.
makes a good sound bite.
Unfortunately, we have seen a massive loss in the wealth of the middle class while seeing a massive rise in wealth in the top 5%. Much of this is due to the "trickle down" policies of the Reagan administration. Unfortunately, this looting of the middle class and their opportunities has to be righted, and without any other mechanism taxation is our only available remedy.
Most middle class tax payers pay little to no taxes. I am one. At the end of the year I end p with more back than I paid. I have kids. The burden of taxes in this country is squarely on the wealthiest Americans. As for trickle down, when was the last time a homeless person employed someone or built a home or a mall. Where do you think the money comes from that builds the places you live in and work at. Trickle down may not be a perfect recipe but trickle up isn't working at all. Its a matter of physics, nothing trickles up hill.
if I understand you, you think that if you are in the class bracket that pays no taxes that you are "middle class"? Buddy, I don't want to burst your bubble but you aren't middle class, you are poor. And if you have kids, they get to compete with the world with substandard education, and a mind numbing deficit. I am sure there fathers efforts to crush a better future for them will swell their chests with pride.
Your hypocrisy becomes apparent with every post. You are a poor civil servant in an welfare state defending the status quo out of pride. For your kids' sake, I hope you learn to swallow that, and help move us all forward.
Peace.
Rick Beagle
"Equal results for all."
Yeah, that's so awful, instead of people living in poverty, having to work three jobs just to make ends meet.
Fuck off.
The more the right wing wackos call Obama's economic policies socialist, the more I like what Obama is doing, whether or not they are "European" as freaks like Romney are saying. I'm proud of my European heritage more than my American anyway.
“For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That’s not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it’s an impressive start.”
When President Clinton appeared on Letterman last August, he said that health care costs 16% of GDP and we leave 16% of our people uncovered. Our competitors in Europe and Japan spend 11% of GDP and cover everyone. We don't need to spend any more money, instead we need to change how we're spending it.
Well, what is it that our European and Japanese competitors are doing to keep costs down? They have single payer health insurance. But, in a bid to keep the corporate welfare going, the corporate Democrat, Obama studiously avoids any discussion on how health care is handled in other countries. And don't expect any kind of dichotomy between the corporate Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
Like President Clinton said, we don't need to be spending any more money. The way to controlling health costs, which are a drag on our businesses in this global competition, is to switch to single payer health care like our European and Japanese competitors do.
Like Ross Perot said, we could examine the various health care provisioning systems in other countries and copy the one that seems to work the best. Or, implement H.R. 676, Medicare for all.
(And it wouldn't hurt if people started losing a few pounds. Obesity increases the incidents of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, and hence, our costs.)
Presidential candidate Edward Kennedy proposed health care reform in 1976? Nice to see that a little bit of forward thinking fixed this issue before it became a problem... oh wait... %$^ it.
Mary Jo Kopechne: Teddy, Teddy, I think I'm pregnant.
Ted Kennedy: We'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it.
An oldie but goodie, and why Kennedy didn't get the nomination. Hillary gave health care reform a try in Clinton's 1st term, and I think that since Hillary's effort, we've seen non-stop sponsorship of the nightly news by pharmaceutical companies. Consequently, we don't have a debate going on in this country over single payer.
Health care is the best example as to why leaving solutions to private enterprise doesn't work. How can any private enterprise justify spending on cures, which doesn't produce recurring revenue? Maintenance regimes is the key to recurring revenues, and enhancing shareholder values, hence solutions from irritable bowel syndrome to restless leg syndrome.
The vacuum creates a need for a government role in producing cures, which is the last thing our medical industry wants, since it doesn't enhance shareholder value.
Single payer insurance is the fiscally conservative approach since it costs less than the corporate welfare system employed today.
why Ted lost the nomination, and in my mind, justifiably so. I just wanted to put a bit of history on the problem and the fact that forward thinking keeps getting crushed in this country. As for Hillary's efforts, we had a repeat - another forward thinker crushed by the deep pockets of corporate America.
Thanks for trying, but you should really look into fat activism.
Fat people are healthier, by far, than skinny people.
Honest to god. Look it up.
Check out the Fatosphere sometime (google Kate Harding, etc).
This is a vrey small movement right now, but is growing, for a reason.
even if the government confiscated the entire income of everyone earning over $75,000 there would not be enough to cover what Obama has spent since taking office. Maybe a little perspective is helpful.
In 2001, Boosh got his 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut. Against the better judgment of Chairman Greenspan and Treasury Secretary O'Neill. They opposed it. But you wanted your tax cut, didn't you? Now we're faced with the biggest deficit ever.
How can you sleep at night knowing that you took part in that?
Oh, and yer still fulla shit.
is helpful?! Gawd man, pick up a book at look at deficit growth under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. That's right, under Clinton and the Democrats it declined. Under the latest Bush we got two wars, crimes against humanity, gutted infrastructure, tax breaks to the wealthy, doubling of the national debt and the biggest financial collapse in history. And you think Obama is the problem?!
Another one of those stupid and lazy people I need to have patience with.
I don't think you missed a single liberal talking point. You speak of tax breaks as if we are giving this guys your money. It is their money they earned it. If they earned it illegally prosecute them. If they earned it legally then get off of their backs and earn your own. It is that which made this country great not redistribution of others property to make everything "fair". Fair is being able to keep what I earn. Its being able to keep what you earn.
...who won't vote for increased taxes.
Wait, we just had an election, and those candidates you'd support didn't win enough seats in Congress.
They screwed up the whole shibang. And the voters know it.
if I got this right. You don't think there is any problem with giving a tax break to people who are affluent while amassing massive debt because, let me guess, it will trickle down positively into the economy?
Or let's try this a different way, you think we should allow 5% of the country keep this small percentage of their wealth, while 95% struggle to put food on the table?
Blink, blink, are you really that stupid and uncaring?
Not $75,000, do some serious research, will you please.
The tax increases start above $250,000.
Here is my last comment on Paulson's Plunder.
through corporations.
... that Paul Krugman did not run this past Economist cum laude, Nobel Prize Aspirant Dr. Hannity.
... that the size of the stimulus is equal to the size of the hole the republicans have caused to be dug.
The deeper and wider the hole, the more needs to be thrown in to get back even
{Deleted, Flamebaiting. Keep it on topic. SiteMonitor}
throwing in repubs is like throwing in cow manure imho, and we all know how well things grow with a little manure.
Why in the heck are you bagging on the liberals anyhow?! Do you even understand a freaking graph?! Those repubs threw you and us under the goddamn bus. How can you still support them?
I support true conservatives. None of which currently reside in any office in Washington. Don't misconstrue my disdain for democrats as tacit approval of what republicans are doing.
Did you or did you not vote for Boosh in both elections.
And how did you feel about the way the swifties treated Kerry and Cleland? Did you agree with them?
He's bagging on what he thinks they are, and what he's been told by the likes of rush limbaugh. Neither has an idea as to what it means to be left liberal or progressive. This kind of person has just found a convenient made up boogy man.
It enables their selfishness gluttony and greed. And he's one of the wealthy neocon's parrots who prefers to argue against his own best interests.
I must be wealthy, that $35,000 a year I earn makes me rich. Geeze, guilty of stereotyping much. I'm a cop you should know I am not rich.
I said you were a dupe of the wealthy, not that you are wealthy. and the fact that you make $35,000K (must be a part timer or maybe a non-sworn officer, or perhaps you work in a southern state) proves my point. YOU ARGUE AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.
I neither need nor want anything from my government except to protect my constitutional rights. The right to property would be the one I'm most concerned with at this point. I am no ones dupe or lackey. I developed my ideals through life experience. I would hope that you would at least give me credit for that. As far as my career I am a full time sworn officer with 12 years under my belt. And yes I work in a southern state. No unions here, thank God, otherwise i imagine we would also be bankrupt.
Argue against your own best interests.
Now, who's the one who hasn't missed a single talking point?
Really, your position is stunningly ignorant.
Willful ignorance at that.
to a starting wage of $50K or above. Sweet. You ARE a lackey and a dupe. It's not what you say that gives you away, it's what you do. And you are thanking baby jesus for a shitty wage. Again. Arguing against your own best interests. And defending it. Manchurian Candidate are you. The Reich's obedient little foot soldier. Trained seal.
And fuck those unions. They only got kids out of factories, safe working conditions 40 hour work weeks, benefits, medical, retirement, etc. You're better off w/o all that folderol.
If you have benefits w/ your job, you have to thank the unions anyway. If your shitheel state didn't offer them, they'd never get police forces together.
And I hope you come to learn the police fire roads and schools are all socialistic entities. I don't have hope you'll ever get it, but that's what it is.
bankrupt? Um, most of those southern states are getting paid by the federal government to stay afloat. Specifically, for every dollar of tax that the Federal government gets, your state gets more back. Your whole state is a welfare state and a pox on our economy. Try electing some fiscally responsible and forward thinking people into office would you?!
“No unions here ...”
What's wrong with unions? Seems to me, that unions is a bit of capitalism, which allows workers to bargain, dicker about the money. Capitalism is all about dickering about the money.
Speaking of Tarp more than the stimulus.
I think it depends on what hole you're throwing the money into. My concern is, regarding the Banks, is that we're throwing money into a derivative hole, which is essentially bottomless.
8 years of Bush gives me short patience with ideological based reasoning. So, when Obama's position is that government shouldn't be running banks, instead of giving a rationale as to why continuing to pour money into the banks instead of nationalizing them, causes me concern.
The stimulus will help alleviate the symptoms of the recession/depression. However, once the money runs out, the symptoms will return, and we'll be that much further in debt. We need “change” in many of our economic systems, starting with single payer health care to control costs. Our role as the world's policeman needs to be examined. The war on drugs is a drain, and could be much more intelligently constructed. Free trade (the system where the country who has the most exploitable work force is rewarded) should be reevaluated, since it's driving workers out of the middle class.
And in the end, we're not really a democracy, instead, we've been manipulated by the FCC regulated media into choosing between two corporate candidates, creating a de facto corporate oligarchy. Hence the corporate welfare approach, and with that approach, we're not going to get out of this mess.
Yeah, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of a congressman. For too long, access to, and influence of, our elected officials was controlled by the amount of money you were willing to pay. Those with the most profit had the most influence. This led to many bad decisions over the years.
Many times it was not that the politicians were innately corrupt, but the system was. That system led to those in power hearing nothing but what is good for business. We had lost focus on the purpose of government – to serve the people, not business.
No, the business of government is not business. Thinking it was has led to the problems we have now like health-care, the drug-wars, the REAL wars.
The only business of government is to protect our rights. Money has absolutely corrupted the process. This problem however is not democrat or republican it is both. I would stand at your side to fight for this cause regardless of your political affiliation.
And you'll be listening to Lush Rimaughlls the whole time.
Though I don't agree with the limited scope, I am glad we can find common ground.
Have you ever read the Constitution of the United States of America?
Here's a sample (Article I, Section 8):
And that isn't even half of the fucking section!
Were you home schooled or something?
I am familiar with the constitution and I would really appreciate it if you could copy and paste the part where it gives the power to congress to create a welfare state and redistribute wealth.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
...the Constitution gives the right to the President to send troops to fight wars without a declaration of war being passed by the Congress.
Nothing I can do about that one, happened when congress gave the president that power. Should be repealed though. Don't misconstrue general welfare to mean welfare state. That article does not give congress that power.
It's not even an amendment to the Constitution.
redistribute wealth. Like police and fire depts. roads and schools.
I believe those are paid by local taxing districts not the federal government. At least where I'm at those things are paid for by ad valorem taxes.
Armed forces. Interstate Highways. And schools do get federal funds, from small districts to higher education. Need the latest in firefighting equipment? Write a grant. Your popo force becoming militarised, with fancy tanks and SWAT Teams? The Feds are giving that shit away.
And your area no doubt gets federal funding. I suspect so because you are only making $35K after 12 OTJ.
Oh BTW local taxes paying for the services still = socialised services.
Before this happened people had to pay watch committees that were very localised. and fire fighting was based on the insurance badge on your building. If Insurer A responded to a fire and the badge was Insurer B, those firemen wouldn't fight that fire.
We should not be bailing out banks. The bad mortgages are still out there and nothing we are doing is addressing this bad debt. We are simply pushing it down the line so to speak. It will eventually rear its ugly head again unless it is taken off of the books. Bailouts wont do this.
“We should not be bailing out banks.”
Not necessarily true. We should not be bailing out banks if no good will come of it. But if there is a cascading effect through the economy because the financial system isn't functioning, then something needs to be done. However, I think it's an impossibility to pay off the derivative based losses, and this component needs to somehow be surgically removed from the bailout.
However, I think the shareholders should be wiped out. Citybank has a market cap of $9B or so. Why does the government only have a 36% stake in the company, given the amounts spent on City? It's corporate welfare, pure and simple. And, I think the furor over "nationalization" is overblown. We've had FDIC takeovers before - what's the difference.
In the end, in facing this depression, we really only know what didn't work, Hoover's approach of doing nothing. We got to remember, we're really only at 1929-1930, and we're trying to prevent 1932. We really don't know what will work. In the old depression, the stock market failed, but it took 2-4 years to take the banks along with it. In this one, the banks are gone from the get-go.
only the scope is different in regards to banks. Your talking about a lot of banks. i don't think there is much precedent, at least in recent history, for the size and scale of this type of takeover. I agree with you there is too much out there to keep throwing money at it. We will reach a point of diminishing returns rather quickly ( I think we are already there). All we are doing, as you stated, is adding a great deal of debt on top of an already staggering problem. As far as the approach goes, time will tell if it is right or wrong. I hope for the sake of our country it works (I know not very conservative of me rooting for Obama).
“rooting for Obama”
Don't root for Obama. Root for the U.S.A. and for Obama's approach to work.
But remember, an ideological view that "banks shouldn't be bailed out" isn't going to fix anything, because, like the ant, we in this economy, have a "division of labor". Banks don't operate in isolation, and their failures can cascade onto other innocent businesses and individuals. Hence, the depression era regulations to keep the banking industry strong.
The current situation can be directly traced back to legislation authored by Phil Gramm and signed by Bill Clinton, repealing much of the depression era regulations on the banks. A decade later - Depression II.
I think that impact is being overrated. Certainly keeping the credit lines open is important. Insuring the deposits more so. The amounts of money being gifted to the banks to salvage these two are much more than either are actually worth (in monetary terms). In essence, we're being blackmailed into giving them more than what the hostage is worth.
That's why I kinda lean towards FDIC takeover/nationalization. I haven't heard anything out of Obama/Geithner other than corporate welfare mumbo-jumbo.
I agree. Much of the fall of the GDP over the last quarter is based on the collapse of market-to-market trades between the banks for these CDOs and CDSs. I'm afraid it is this that they're trying to save. Bad move.
But that's ALREADY happened. The Obama bailout may slow down the avalanche for a few years but it won't stop it. And many smaller banks and financial institutions WILL go under because there isn't enough money for them.
Guess who's gotten the biggest chunks of money? It isn't the smaller financial institutions who played by the rules but got badly burned in the ripple effect -- it's the large institutions who didn't play by the rules and burned down their own houses. It's grossly unfair and rewards fraud instead of reasonable financial practices. Even the credit unions got burned, not by their own conservative practices but by the Corporate Credit Unions, who manage credit union funds -- the CCUs gambled with that money just as the large financial institutions did.
Depression era regulations won't accomplish much in the long run if we don't also reinstitute some version of the Glass-Steagall Act to keep a firm control on the banks that survive.
I haven't seen much analysis on how Obama's efforts will affect the global situation which is also in the same straits simply because of the US-led banking fraud perpetuated on borrowers and investors everywhere.
You are arguing two different points.
Securitization of mortgages, and in fact all consumer credit, was brought about the Financial Modernization Act of 1999. This passed in November of 1999 repealing the Glass Steagall act of 1933, which itself was passed to reign in the excesses of the 1920s.
The FMA of 1999 allowed commerical (depositor) banks, investment banks and insurance companies to all do essentially the same thing, and to merge, again after being so prohibited since 1933. It also allowed mortgages to be sold to other banks and investors as securities.
This had the unfortunate effect of distancing the originator (broker) of a mortgage or any form of credit from the consequences of its performance. They stopped caring.
Banks up the chain bought the mortgages and bundled them into Collateralized Debt Obligations, CDO for short.
Bad lending practices, bad rating practices and false accounting led directly our current disaster.
At the bottom of it all was the failure of property values to continue to rise.
That is what the housing bubble and any so called 'bubble' is about and why they burst.
In the mix are credit default swaps, described as insurance like, they are more like casino bets.
If you owned a risky security you could buy a swap. If were a speculator you could buy a swap.
These had been illegal since 1907 with anti bucket shop laws, gambling laws. This until the Commodities Futures and Modernization Act of 2000, another Phil Gramm bill forbid the enforcement by the states. They knew they were gambling and had been illegal.
Phil Gramm did not write the bill, it was written by the Wall Street Fat cats.
The current world Swap market is about $70 trillion. About $20 trillion relate to the mortgage and consumer credit securities.
The investment banks all dealt heavily in swaps and that is why they imploded.
For every mortgage dollar lost there are ten twenty maybe even one hundred to be lost in swaps.
Citi, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Wachovia, Merrill, AIG they were all big on Swaps, Geithner wants to pay the swaps off at face value.
Now with collapse of the mortgage securities market the banks have loads of CDOs for which there is no market. Standard accounting practice requires mark to market. That means something is worth what you can get, there is no market so they aren't worth anything.
They have performance of underlying mortgages so they should be worth something.
The Banksters want us to give them what they say they are worth. If they put them on their phony balance sheets they would be judged insolvent.
There is yet another class of CDO, the synthetic CDO which is has a Swap as collateral and then is made up out of thin air. There were not enough people with bad credit to satisfy the greed of the Banksters so they made them up out of thin air. These are also dangerous. This is a story for another time.
The Banks should have been allowed to go bankrupt, the FDIC would then intervene in the deposit units of the banks, and the rest would be broken up.
Unfortunately Paulson wanted his buddies to get their swap money out and we are on the hook.
Here is my last comment on Paulson's plunder.
Buying these securities has absolutely nothing to do with helping homeowners. It only about Welfare for the Rich.
The program of helping homeowners is complicated itself. It is going to require of tweak of the bankruptcy law to allow Judges to 'cramdown' mortgage amounts.
You can count on a fierce legal fight from Credit Default Swap Fat Cats who were betting that those folks would go bust.
That is the irony of this supposed 'Free Market' that the Fat Cats wanted and thrust upon us.
There never was and there never will be a free market.
The Rich and the Powerful hijack the government to put regulations in place that tilt the playing field their way, but in no way does it protect the little guy.
Alice X - the research leviathan...
"You can count on a fierce legal fight from Credit Default Swap Fat Cats who were betting that those folks would go bust."
I've only heard of a few Hedge Funds purchasing CDSs in anticipation of a falling house market. Most were betting on an infinite 10-20% year over year increase in housing prices to make up for the eventual certainty of mortgage defaults. Have you found anything on the breakdown of up vs down swaps?
There are people reported to have been pure down side speculators that have walked away with billions, tens of billions.
Hedge Funds would do arbitrage on their CDS and make money on the spread.
The ISDA would hold auctions when there were many issues on a particular company or position.
Other than that this is a shadow system.
Yet one CDO can be a $1 billion unit.
The banks generally did not hedge, which now clearly wasn't very smart. Except that we are bailing them out, so maybe it was brilliant. It depends on your perspective.
Except for Goldman which seems to have been the only with two brain cells rubbing together. They looked at their slumping portfolio in early '07 and hedged with AIG. They had $20 billion owed from AIG which was going bust in September '08 and their buddies Paulson and Geithner got it for them.
The swap holders might have a case to make even though if they don't own the security it is a sleazy one. They paid money on a contract predicated on a credit event. If the homeowner is in bankruptcy court that event has happened. But the terms are now subject to modification by the Judge.
Likewise for any CDO holder, they are going to complain about the cramdown. They bought a security at a cash value.
The securities and CDS can be bought and sold a number of times. It is a mess.
What I am waiting for is action against the rating agencies.
Here and here are articles in Bloomberg which are as close to j'accuse as I have seen.
Many have expressed their thanks for your continued insight. I thank you too, but mostly I'm in awe.
Well thank you, but I just keep a little data base and that helps out a lot.
seriously
“What I am waiting for is action against the rating agencies.”
I've been posting for months, calling for a criminal prosecution against the rating agencies for grading mortgage backed securities as "AAA" with knowledge that those securities weren't entitled to such a rating, for the intentional purpose and effect of defrauding investors who purchased these securities.
As witnesses to the prosecution, I would first and foremost be calling all these Republicans who averred that these loans would have never been made, had not the obligation to loan these amounts been required by the Congress in an endeavor to increase home ownership by low income people. How could a loan that no one in their right mind would make, absent a legal obligation to do so, be entitled to an "AAA" rating?
One thing we did in this new free trade environment is to export our white collar crime, so that those other nations who surrendered their financial sovereignty are now feeling the effects of dealing with a nation with no white collar crime enforcement.
SORRY, SUCKERS. ;-)
Sure. By getting caught up in the terminology of Nationalization vs Bail-out vs 'Let them fail', we are failing to address the obvious solution. They went bankrupt. Their payouts on the derivatives are worthless. They bet, they lost. Let the FDIC come in, protect the deposits, and fund some credit back into the system. Other than that....phffft!
There are criminals behind this melt-down. Their assets are forfeit. This includes the rating agencies, which were relied upon to give AAA ratings to sub-standard investments.
Not much to add to this other than, um Obama, either nationalize the zombie banks, or let them fail. Throwing money into them is the wrong solution.
How does filling the hole with money make sense? Bush leaves and our National debt is $11.7 trillion...which
is about $900billion added to the debt for each of the Bush years. I see the debt as the "Hole" we are in. Now in just by October of this year $3 trillion will have been added to the debt. Think about it more debt...deepper hole? Wouldn't it be great if we could run deficits in our household like that. Maybe we could get wall street to sell China "household bonds". That way there when we are in a hole we can just fill it with money. I gues I just don't get the logic. I do understand jumpstarting the economy...but it's no reason to jump off the deep end here.
Krugman was on MSNBC Thursday night and to me he looked
like a man hedgeing his bets. With a base budget of $1.1trillion, $1.273trillion in discretionary spending,
and $1.2trillion in additional bailout money. Some of the discretionary spending is earmarked for disasters
which may happen in 2010, if they don't happen, then the President can spend it at his discretion. I did not get the impression that Krugman was excited about
all of this. After all since October we have pumped $1.5trillion into Tarp and the Recovery Act. Fiscal
year 2010 begins October 1. We will have increased the
national debt by $3trillion in one year. If you believe that the budget will come out of Congress the
way it goes in forget it. They still have to add the pet projects, pay off corporate lobbyists for their financial support in subverting the electorate, and prop up the special interests, whom are held so nearly
and dearly to their heart. I have heard
all of the arguments about why we need so much money to buy our way out of the economic crisis. Usually when you try to do this, you lose sight of reality and
wind up in trouble anyway. Maybe it's just hard to accept hardship, but kicking the can down the road will only make it worse when the chickens come home to roost. Our kids deserve better, their kids deserve better. Ask yourself one basic question. Will the American dream be there for our kids? Not if they are
saddled with debt. It is time for austerity and atrition. A time to think big, not big deficits, but of new ways to run our country. There are a series of questions that can be asked. Should we continue to bail out wall street or is the money better spent proping up the everyday joe?(after all consumption drives the economy) Do we really need a World War II
defense structure?(i.e. 12 carrier groups floating around projecting power) Can we go light, fast and high tech on defense for far less money. Does NASA
really need to go to MARS? (perhaps they should focus on space based defense to counter china's innovations). Do we really need to borrow money from china and double what we give away in foreign aid? These are some of the questions I would ask. I would focus any additional funds on revitalizing Industry in America. Our innovations are the backbone of the world economy. At this point our industry has been moved overseas, our technology transfered, our intellectual property stolen. We have the ability to rebuild, innovate more, especially in the area of energy. We need to invest in our kids education. Graduate more scientists and engineers. Pay them well. We need to invest in research and development of our science and technology sectors. There is so much that can be done, if only we had leaders with some backbone to stand up for the present and future of America.
... that capitalism is not the ideal economy.. We need to combine the best and prudent from several possibilities. Capitalism flourishes because it is born of greed, and greed will give life to creativity, inventions and innovations because there is a profit at the end of it, or failure.
The financial sector does not need creativity lest we want to create the monsters that we have now encountered. Therefore I am in favor of federal banks, and for those who claim that the government can't do anything well, it appears that those in charge of the failed banks certainly can't either, and the government surely can't do worse. They are doing a pretty good job in some of what they administer, like Medicare, which serves me well enough.
Then there is healthcare. No one should become wealthy off the misfortunes of their fellow man. But there is room for both. The government should run healthcare providing essential care and preventive care for those not wanting to or not being able to choose one of the following two options. One would be a not-for-profit private enterprise offering essential care and preventive care at minimum premium, also provide other coverages at additional premiums. The other would be for the rich cats who can buy at insurance companies as they exist now. Insurance would be mandatory for every person.
Keep in mind that capitalism will not support anything that does not - as capitalists like to say - 'accumulate wealth'. With the hundreds of insurance companies, all with the same expenses and salaries, stock holders and executives syphoning off half of the premiums they collect (or maybe more) could be combined into a handful, in addition to the government run entity, where premiums go to the intended purpose, pay providers with agreed-to compensation.
Even with Franken seated--we must imagine him an Obama loyalist--the Dims don't have the firepower to push the Budget--in tact--through the Congress.
So we need to wonder just how much of the glittering "progressive" agenda is there merely as bargaining chips, to be discarded in the name of comity...
thinks its a good budget, I believe it. And, now it's up to US to make the Congress accept President Obama's plans. Those in Congress that don't get behind this and MAKE IT WORK get thrown under the figurative bus politically - and don't get to climb back on in 2010 or 2012 or 2014....
I have grown skeptical, about whether any of the
Congress will ever get thrown under the "figuritive political bus". Just look at some of the congressmen who have survived scandals as well as the ones who are oppositionally defiant. In effect they are a microcosm of the constituents they represent and probaly reflect the thinking prevelant in the geographic area the represent.
Login or Register to post comments.