Worst recovery ever?

[Yossarian]

Since this is CBS, I don't know if it's fake but true. But since it might affect the upcoming election, I wll accept it as gospel.

 

[sd'sker]

Since this is CBS, I don't know if it's fake but true. But since it might affect the upcoming election, I wll accept it as gospel.

 

you demonstrate an unwavering quest for truth with such staunch integrity.

[Yossarian]

Since this is CBS, I don't know if it's fake but true. But since it might affect the upcoming election, I wll accept it as gospel.

 

you demonstrate an unwavering quest for truth with such staunch integrity.

 

Thanks. Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeps texting me trying to get me to join the Obama team. I'd like to join it, but there's a possibility that President Obama is a felon, and I can't be a part of that. He might be a felon, and he might not be. WE DON'T KNOW! He might have developed his hatred for the U.S. while sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church. Does he hate the U.S.? WE DON"T KNOW! President Obama's college records are sealed. Why? Maybe because his admission to college was race-based and his grades show that he really is as clueless as he appears. Is he really that clueless? It would appear so, but WE DON'T KNOW. And his use of Executive Privilege to stop the investigation into Fast and Furious appears to be a cover-up. Is it? WE DON'T KNOW. President Obama is funneling money to his cronys...you know, crony capitalism. True? YES. WE KNOW!

[carlfense]

Thanks. Debbie Wasserman Schultz keeps texting me trying to get me to join the Obama team. I'd like to join it, but there's a possibility that President Obama is a felon, and I can't be a part of that. He might be a felon, and he might not be. WE DON'T KNOW! He might have developed his hatred for the U.S. while sitting in Jeremiah Wright's church. Does he hate the U.S.? WE DON"T KNOW! President Obama's college records are sealed. Why? Maybe because his admission to college was race-based and his grades show that he really is as clueless as he appears. Is he really that clueless? It would appear so, but WE DON'T KNOW. And his use of Executive Privilege to stop the investigation into Fast and Furious appears to be a cover-up. Is it? WE DON'T KNOW. President Obama is funneling money to his cronys...you know, crony capitalism. True? YES. WE KNOW!

[knapplc]

Crony Capitalism?

Crony capitalism is a term very much in vogue because of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's accusations that President Obama has engaged in the practice, allegedly rewarding the business interests of political supporters with federal taxpayer dollars.

 

That the term is being used as a cudgel by one presidential candidate against another is reason enough to be skeptical about the accuracy and fairness of the charge.

 

Indeed, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler declared false at least one Romney claim of Obama administration crony capitalism.

 

Still, the allegations raise the opportunity to focus on a point made increasingly by critics of American politics and capitalism. Namely, that crony capitalism exists and that it is thoroughly bipartisan.

 

One of the most interesting and evenhanded recent discussions of the issue comes from David Stockman, the former congressman who served as President Ronald Reagan's budget director and later became an investment banker.

 

 

LINK

[Yossarian]

Crony Capitalism?

Crony capitalism is a term very much in vogue because of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's accusations that President Obama has engaged in the practice, allegedly rewarding the business interests of political supporters with federal taxpayer dollars.

 

That the term is being used as a cudgel by one presidential candidate against another is reason enough to be skeptical about the accuracy and fairness of the charge.

 

Indeed, Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler declared false at least one Romney claim of Obama administration crony capitalism.

 

Still, the allegations raise the opportunity to focus on a point made increasingly by critics of American politics and capitalism. Namely, that crony capitalism exists and that it is thoroughly bipartisan.

 

One of the most interesting and evenhanded recent discussions of the issue comes from David Stockman, the former congressman who served as President Ronald Reagan's budget director and later became an investment banker.

 

 

LINK

 

I particularly liked this quote from David Stockman:

 

DAVID STOCKMAN: "If you have a former community organizer who was trained in the Saul Alinsky school of direct democracy, appointing the worst abuser, the worst abuser of crony capitalism, GE, who came in and begged for this bailout, to head his Jobs Council, when obviously GE's international corporation, they've been shifting jobs offshore for decades, then it becomes so obvious that we have a new kind of system, and that we have a real crisis."

 

Claiming that it is somehow acceptable since everyone does it is somewhat amusing. Mitt Romney has not been throwing U.S. Federal dollars to any of his cronys - like President Obama has been doing with GE, the worst abuser of crony capitalism according to NPRs "expert." And all of those other politicians who are guilty of it, except for Barack Obama, none is running for President.

[carlfense]

Mitt Romney has not been throwing U.S. Federal dollars to any of his cronys - like President Obama has been doing . . .

Which raises another question . . . we know who President Obama's bundlers are because he released their names.

 

What's Mitt's excuse? If he is elected how are we to know if he is throwing money to his cronys? We won't . . . because (like his tax returns) he keeps them secret.

 

 

 

Is this more Romney camp incompetence? Or does Romney really have nothing else to hit back with?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/16/romney_campaign_sleepwalks_into_name_your_bundlers_story.html

[JJ Husker]

Back to the gist of the topic; Economic recovery or rather the lack thereof.

 

I am curious what HB'ers attribute this to. They did the stimulus deals and that didn't turn things around. It is arguable if they in fact made it worse or if they were not big enough but the fact remains that the economy and unemployment has basically sucked since BHO took office. My personal opinion is that it will not get any better as long as Obama is in office. Not necessarily because of anything he is or is not doing but for the simple fact that confidence is at an all time low. It seems nobody wants to spend any money to get things turning. I really think it is because there is too much apprehension at what Obama and a spend/tax happy congress might do, especially if he is a lame duck with no further campaigning to do. It is widely known that his preference would be to tax the bajeezuz out of anybody or any company that has a pot to piss in. Ironically, those that might actually have some money to spend are overly concerned about what might be coming down the pike. You can forget about all the campaign BS of Bain this Romney that, the simple fact is that this thing ain't gonna turnaround until people feel a whole lot more like they have some control over their future.

 

I'm sure many on here will disagree but I see 4 possible outcomes to the upcoming election and only one of those will be positive for an economic/unemployment recovery.

Obama re-elected with a dem controlled congress-worst possible outcome economically

Obama re-elected with a repub controlled congress-just a few ticks better but still very bad and isn't that where we are now.

Romney wins and congress flips to dems- The economy could get better but the dems may just turn into the party of no.

Romney wins and repubs control congress- Consumer confidence improves dramatically.

 

It's not that I think Romney is great ( I don't) but simply that he is not Obama. If you want the economy to improve, this is what you should be pulling for.

Trickle up economics won't work because there is nothing to trickle.

[bhamHusker]

...

I'm sure many on here will disagree but I see 4 possible outcomes to the upcoming election and only one of those will be positive for an economic/unemployment recovery.

Obama re-elected with a dem controlled congress-worst possible outcome economically

Obama re-elected with a repub controlled congress-just a few ticks better but still very bad and isn't that where we are now.

Romney wins and congress flips to dems- The economy could get better but the dems may just turn into the party of no.

Romney wins and repubs control congress- Consumer confidence improves dramatically.

...

You're a real Carnac there with that prediction!

[krill]

I think the first question that needs to be asked is when the last time to the economy was "good". There were some good of economic growth with Bush, but as it turns out it was largely fueled by a housing boom (building housing and filling those houses with stuff) that people couldn't really afford. There was a long stretch of solid growth with Clinton, but we also had extremely cheap energy and there was also a tech bubble at the end. So if we can agree that oil will never be $20 / barrel again, and another housing bubble is undesirable, what then does economic growth look like in this decade?

 

Jobs in manufacturing and agriculture will be at best flat because of efficiency and productivity gains. Many retailers are being driven out of business by online and big box retailers that require less staff. Jobs in the federal government are growing at a rate less than the population, and jobs in state and local government have declined sharply. The middle class in general has less money to spend on products. So where are the jobs, and where is the money to buy stuff going to come from even if we had the perfect President and congress?

[JJ Husker]

...

I'm sure many on here will disagree but I see 4 possible outcomes to the upcoming election and only one of those will be positive for an economic/unemployment recovery.

Obama re-elected with a dem controlled congress-worst possible outcome economically

Obama re-elected with a repub controlled congress-just a few ticks better but still very bad and isn't that where we are now.

Romney wins and congress flips to dems- The economy could get better but the dems may just turn into the party of no.

Romney wins and repubs control congress- Consumer confidence improves dramatically.

...

You're a real Carnac there with that prediction!

 

lol. Yeah I didn't really go out on a limb with that one, now that you mention it.

[JJ Husker]

I think the first question that needs to be asked is when the last time to the economy was "good". There were some good of economic growth with Bush, but as it turns out it was largely fueled by a housing boom (building housing and filling those houses with stuff) that people couldn't really afford. There was a long stretch of solid growth with Clinton, but we also had extremely cheap energy and there was also a tech bubble at the end. So if we can agree that oil will never be $20 / barrel again, and another housing bubble is undesirable, what then does economic growth look like in this decade?

 

Jobs in manufacturing and agriculture will be at best flat because of efficiency and productivity gains. Many retailers are being driven out of business by online and big box retailers that require less staff. Jobs in the federal government are growing at a rate less than the population, and jobs in state and local government have declined sharply. The middle class in general has less money to spend on products. So where are the jobs, and where is the money to buy stuff going to come from even if we had the perfect President and congress?

 

Very good point. Large portions of our economic growth over the last 25ish years have been on unsustainable, house of cards type bubbles. Maybe we've gotten all the recovery we're gonna get. That's pretty dismal to think about. Maybe we could bundle some worthless investments and sell them overseas.....

[AR Husker Fan]

Back to the gist of the topic; Economic recovery or rather the lack thereof.

 

***SNIP***

Excluding cases of pent-up demand brought about by war (particuarly World War II) historically the economy performs "well" when there is sufficient disposable income for the middle class. In short, when there is significant (not merely lip-service) tax cuts for the middle class. In every case in which the so-called "job creators" (a spiffy term for the wealthy) gained tax cuts, there was no net positive effect on the economy. Why? Easy - the discretionary spending of the wealthy is generally unaffected by economic downturns - they continue to have disposable income.

 

Job creation doesn't come from tax cuts to "job creators" - job creation occurs when a business sees an uptick in demand. That demand is almost ALWAYS due to the middle class - and that occurs only when they have enough money to spend beyond the necessities of living. If you look at "good" economic times, they involve a combination of tax increases to the wealthy and tax cuts to the middle class. That brings in more revenue for the government to pay down debt, and increases demand for goods. That, in turns, causes businesses to hire to meet increased demand, which in turn leads to more people with jobs and, eventually, more disposable income.

 

To date, no significant tax break has been made for the middle class (attempted, but thwarted) while taxes for the wealthy continue to be abnormally low based on historical levels.

[JJ Husker]

That makes sense AR Husker Fan. Maybe too much. Possibly the wealthy are driven harder to maintain a higher level of living. Close the gap between them and the middle class and maybe they'll strive harder to widen it again. One things for sure, the middle class sure does need some relief.

[strigori]

If the 'job creators' really wanted to fix the economy (they don't, they might as well all be named Nero) they could, and do it almost over night. Its really this simple. The tops of the companies cut their pay way back and spread that money out as raises to the employees of the same company. Direct money injection to people who will go out and spend money, raise demand for goods and services and actually make their companies more successful. But it won't happen. The greedy bastards are more interested in their own personal wealth and the world be damned.

 

We would be better off if most to all companies ran like the NFL....