The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[JPhillips]

One of the things we could do with a little money is start painting flat tar roofs white in every city in the U.S. It wouldn't take training and could start almost immediately. It would also have the benefit of lowering energy usage.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, the American Society for Structural Engineers estimates that we need $2.2T over the next 5 years for urgently needed infrastructure projects and repairs. Things that governments take care of, like utilities, roads, dams, etc. Since loans won't get any cheaper, now would be the time to take the money out for these projects, rather than later. They are going to have to be done at some point, and the number is only going to grow as more items are pushed off until later.

I'd be all for dropping unemployment and putting these people to work on the infrastructure improvements so we get something back for the money.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'd be all for dropping unemployment and putting these people to work on the infrastructure improvements so we get something back for the money.

Exactly....stop paying people to sit at home and pay them to do something. It defies logic to do otherwise.

I was watching one of the morning cable news networks the other morning (MSNBC or CNN...I forget but thinking it was Scarborough/MSNBC) and it was suggested that Obama hold another business summit of sorts to get business leaders' ideas and thoughts on how to get the economy moving. I found it interesting when the (liberal) pundit suggested that even liberal-leaning business leaders think its a waste of time to go to these since Obama doesn't seem to grasp how and why jobs would be created by these same business leaders. More to the effect of...Obama comes in and starts lecturing everybody to "Start hiring people" rather than actually trying to understand why any of them would take on additional overhead costs.

Could have been a self-important pundit trying to appear to have some great insight...but it doesn't seem unlikely given the results he's had so far. While I was not convinced Obama would be capable of doing great things, I did think he was a very intelligent man that could grasp the intricacies of the economy when focusing on it (and of course, having legitimate experts at his disposal). I also thought he would see the economy as his mission to "fix"...and even if that led to some things I wouldn't normally support...thought that he would get it back on the right track.

But I'm not so sure he is humble enough to engage at the necessary levels for some reason. Maybe that's what the disconnect from reality is...and why he hasn't made the right choices & priorities.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Actually, getting rid of government subsidies (in the form of tax deductions) would, in classical economics, be more likely to decrease prices. In some supply situations and points on the demand curve the decrease in subsidy would have a substantial enough effect on volume to drive up prices (fewer customers leads to a supply cut to the point where remaining customers need to pay more per unit).

You are right about that but I was thinking in terms of real prices of necessities like grain foods. Its a sweeping generalization and hard to apply across the board. But I agree, the relative prices would go down for most items, but probably go up for others for the same reason you noted on the number of people consuming the item or service. Basically...the industries the government keeps alive through subsidies will likely go up relative to incomes while the things the government is transparent to will likely go down or remain flat.

This is not the case today, demand is pretty saturated particularly in this environment, and the colleges themselves need a certain level of supply or they will need to bail. So in the short run at least the removal of the subsidy will result in a price somewhere in the middle, with colleges cutting costs to get volume and students forking over a bit more of their own money to get in (but overall price decreases).

I would take it further and suggest that inflationary pressure is exacerbated by the government tax subsidies creating an education bubble which may make you fret and fume about losing your several hundred dollar deduction but the price pressure may have cost you thousands of dollars more in loans. If you plopped down some graphs about the total price of colleges I'd venture it would look more like a bubble than inflation.

I couldn't agree more on college costs being in a bubble. I don't have the time to write the manifesto I have in my head on this subject but to summarize...I think the way we educate our workforce has to change. I think we really need to begin identifying skills that can be more OJT and what truly requires dedicated classroom sessions. Certainly both of those have some overlap into the other but I think there are a lot of skills and education that we simply don't need to learn away from the workplace.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One of the things we could do with a little money is start painting flat tar roofs white in every city in the U.S. It wouldn't take training and could start almost immediately. It would also have the benefit of lowering energy usage.

The most obvious question that comes to mind here is "under what authority would they paint a privately owned roof?"

A few others, seemingly obvious as well
-- How much do you figure it'll cost to settle the litigation from "workers" who are injured on the job, traumatized by various aspects of the job, etc?
-- Why are you rewarding property owners who didn't paint their own roof with a free paint job? Once again, the gov't screws someone who did it right.
-- Where are you going to find a paint company that doesn't have some connection to an elected official, since we know there'll be a hue & cry raised about whoever ends up with the contract to provide the paint (no matter which side ends up doing the howling)
-- Does the gov't then get to claim the revenue tied to the energy savings, at least until they recover the cost of the paint job?

And that's just for starters without even trying.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Exactly....stop paying people to sit at home and pay them to do something. It defies logic to do otherwise.

The building where my winery is now located is a former orphan home and communal poor home. The poor people who stayed in the building had to work 8-10 hour days to assure themselves of room and board. There were some volunteers, but the vast majority of the work was done by those in need. I think anything that moves us back towards that line of thinking would be a good thing.

[SteveMax58]

Yep..."work" doesn't always have to mean "digging holes". It can take a lot of forms and still provide more value than merely sitting at home for 10 extra weeks because nobody will hire you.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Gore really isn't that far to the left. The science stuff overshadows the fact he is a moderate. He was more conservative than Bush if you look back on their campaigns.

He's definitely further to the left than he was in 1988. Back then, he was certainly not the same guy that ended up endorsing Howard Dean in 2004.

And in what ways was he more conservative than Bush? He engaged in the same kind of class warfare that every Democrat does. I remember the constant refrain of how the top 1% has half the money. He wanted to eliminate DADT. Opposed Bush's desire to privatize social security. Promised to appoint pro-choice judges.

[JediKooter]

There's a huge workforce sitting in our prisons doing nothing. Cheap labor right there and hey, they might even learn a new skill besides crime.

[SirFozzie]

Not only do you run into the NIMBYs (They might escape!) There are other costs in transporting and guarding them, etcetera.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The most obvious question that comes to mind here is "under what authority would they paint a privately owned roof?"

A few others, seemingly obvious as well
-- How much do you figure it'll cost to settle the litigation from "workers" who are injured on the job, traumatized by various aspects of the job, etc?
-- Why are you rewarding property owners who didn't paint their own roof with a free paint job? Once again, the gov't screws someone who did it right.
-- Where are you going to find a paint company that doesn't have some connection to an elected official, since we know there'll be a hue & cry raised about whoever ends up with the contract to provide the paint (no matter which side ends up doing the howling)
-- Does the gov't then get to claim the revenue tied to the energy savings, at least until they recover the cost of the paint job?

And that's just for starters without even trying.

There are always going to be reasons not to do something and I wouldn't suggest a program like this with unemployment at 5 or 6%. At some point you need to decide if you would rather hire people even with difficulties or wait a decade for things to pick up on their own. I'd rather do something that puts people to work and lowers our energy usage over doing nothing because it's easier.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'd rather do something that puts people to work and lowers our energy usage over doing nothing because it's easier.

But (in all seriousness) how do you propose to get around lacking the authority to climb up on anybody's roof & paint it? Seems like there's an almost guaranteed constitutional challenge to something like that in simplest form.

The closest to straightforward thing I can think of would be a grant program (I've seen similar efforts at state/local levels, a facade grant to pay part of the cost for repairing aging buildings comes to mind).

[cartman]

He didn't say every roof in every city, just roofs in every city. Even at just a 20% participation rate, I'm sure that would be enough to keep workers hopping for quite a while.

[JPhillips]

Just make it voluntary. It's not that hard.

[gstelmack]

So, locally our good-ol' governor, who has a budget crisis and has had to lay off teachers, has decided to mandate that HHS offer pre-K to all 4 year olds. First, she's handing it to HHS instead of the department of education, which I find interesting, although maybe her primary goal is to make sure kids are potty-trained by the time they hit Kindergarten (I've heard anecdotally this can actually be an issue in some areas). Second, by gosh we'll make sure the 4-year-olds are ready, but there won't be any teachers waiting for them when they hit elementary school, since we don't have the funds for that right now.

Mind you, instituting programs like this is a big reason our state budget balooned over the last decade or so...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just make it voluntary. It's not that hard.

That's not what you said originally (translation: that's definitely not how I interpreted what you said).

That addresses the question I asked so I'll save the rant about what a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars that would be, rewarding people for not doing something that is entirely their personal responsibility ... at least until anyone in DC proposes such a thing

[JPhillips]

If you're more worried about fair than getting the economy back on its feet, we'll be stuck for years. Any measure that's going to help is going to be somewhat unfair. I'll reward building owners that should have painted their own roof if it helps fill the 500 billion dollar gap in taxes missing from the recession.

We can't get to a balanced budget without fixing the economy.

[GrantDawg]

Here is Mark Cuban's plan:

An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss. « blog maverick

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Here is Mark Cuban's plan:

An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss. « blog maverick

We already play that game. Dell had to pay back tax breaks they got in coming to North Carolina because they pulled out never having met their job creation goals.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And in what ways was he more conservative than Bush? He engaged in the same kind of class warfare that every Democrat does. I remember the constant refrain of how the top 1% has half the money. He wanted to eliminate DADT. Opposed Bush's desire to privatize social security. Promised to appoint pro-choice judges.

He wanted to pay down the debt with the surplus we had. Bush wanted to lower taxes and run up debt. This was their biggest difference financially, although there were many others. Gore was much more fiscally conservative than Bush.

On social issues, he was moderate at worst. Pro death penalty, decent on gun rights, pro prayer in school, against gay marriage, pro-abstinence education, and held a lot of the same religuous views of Bush.

Outside of a couple social issues, he was more of a Republican (well what they like to think they are) than Bush was.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Here is Mark Cuban's plan:

An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss. « blog maverick

He also had an interesting post a week ago on fixing Patent law. Mainly getting rid of patent trolls that really hurt companies. And how the new Obama law doesn't address the biggest issues and is essentially a waste of time. One problem I see with this is that cash isn't that scarce. Interest rates are low and banks have a lot in reserves. People and businesses are just scared to borrow. And also, many large companies have the cash to hire, they just don't want to till demand picks up.

I don't know how practical any of the ideas are, but I think it's a good time to be throwing ideas out there. We should be trying to figure out ways we can make things better.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Here is Mark Cuban's plan:

An Idea for the Economy that will Freak Out a lot of People but could be Fun to Discuss. « blog maverick

His analysis of the problem is so spot on I get goosebumps.

Not so sure about the solution. I could be wrong, but I don't think the criteria of company he suggests is having as many issues borrowing money to create jobs. In other words...its the <100 person startups that need the money to create more jobs. The big corporations have plenty of cash on hand to do whatever...they just don't see opportunity. And I realize he's speaking in terms of negative yields...but I think thats more chicken & egg...the negative yields are there because nobody wants to use their cash OR borrow.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to turn the economy around inside of 10-15 years is to legislate it into recovery. and by that, I don't mean to have the government actually spend us into recovery...I mean to force us (collectively including corporations) to spend ourselves into recovery.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

His analysis of the problem is so spot on I get goosebumps.

Not so sure about the solution. I could be wrong, but I don't think the criteria of company he suggests is having as many issues borrowing money to create jobs. In other words...its the <100 person startups that need the money to create more jobs. The big corporations have plenty of cash on hand to do whatever...they just don't see opportunity. And I realize he's speaking in terms of negative yields...but I think thats more chicken & egg...the negative yields are there because nobody wants to use their cash OR borrow.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to turn the economy around inside of 10-15 years is to legislate it into recovery. and by that, I don't mean to have the government actually spend us into recovery...I mean to force us (collectively including corporations) to spend ourselves into recovery.

I agree that he has a very good read of the situation. I also agree that it is not the large businesses that need the help, it is the small businesses.

[Edward64]

Anyone else getting whiplash from the massive stock market swings the past week? It's like a Rocky fight.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Not only do you run into the NIMBYs (They might escape!) There are other costs in transporting and guarding them, etcetera.

There would definitely be some of the NIMBY stuff, but, you're paying these guys 25 cents an hour compared to whatever the going rate is in the private sector, I think you would actually save money. My only concern would be the quality of the workmanship and some subterfuge like in Bridge Over the River Kwai. It's not perfect, but, what is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'm coming to the conclusion that the only way to turn the economy around inside of 10-15 years is to legislate it into recovery. and by that, I don't mean to have the government actually spend us into recovery...I mean to force us (collectively including corporations) to spend ourselves into recovery.

Now there's an idea: use the point of a gun to mandate bad business decisions

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree that he has a very good read of the situation. I also agree that it is not the large businesses that need the help, it is the small businesses.

I think it also has a ripple effect. You get new people, new ideas into industries. This forces larger companies to adapt and potentially hire to keep up.

The biggest problem for me is how to determine who deserves it. There are some really bad business ideas out there. And I'm sure there are some really good ones. Are we funding a guy's horrible idea just for the hell of it? I've heard some other ideas about giving credits toward new hires. If an employee is hired and is there for a year, you get a $10,000 tax credit or something.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now there's an idea: use the point of a gun to mandate bad business decisions

Hehe...well, more about legislating standards which drive us to produce new goods & services type stuff. Such as requiring energy providers to be X% (pick the sensible number there) supplying sustainable energy sources (note I didn't necessarily state green).

IDK really...damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[SportsDino]

My recovery recipe:

1. Stop all the other current tax gimmicks and give businesses a tax credit incentive where they get a pro-rated annual credit for every employee (not just new ones, all of them) up to a cap set somewhere around 80-100,000. For best results make it a progressive scale with a higher relative credit for below 50,000, another tier to about 70,000, and then the top tier with the lowest ratio.

Make this credit significant and take all others off of the table (kill the loopholes to massively increase revenue, then revert it back to neutral in a way that directly subsidizes employment).

This provides a simple and direct correlation between tax cuts and jobs, without encouraging waste assuming the credit is not set to something absurd (employees also deduct as an expense off the top to begin with of course, the credit is to reduce the relative cost of labor to capital or work supplies).

Useless workers will not be hired, but if the credit is set to the appropriate level any business that can increase its marginal returns from more workers will be pushed into the green. Companies that are cash rich and worker poor will have to pay taxes, so revenues will be boosted. And it is very easy to set this up so it is too transparent to be gamed (of course our government loves secrecy so they can screw us).

2. Technology, its the only way to get growth of the form we really want, and its our best strength anyhow. This isn't just throw a bunch of money at research projects, this means aggressively pushing quality standards to get businesses to innovate and economize and compete with foreign outfits that will not or can't. Any factory in latest third world slave state can put out standard quality junk, high tech stuff still can be created in the states at a profitable margin.

3. Infrastructure, don't just go 'shovel-ready', build something that is state of the art. Roads out of materials that won't fall apart for years and can handle traffic loads without warping and needing to be replaced every five years with the 'cheap' material (labor costs outstrip anything anyone ever thought of saving from using the cheap stuff they slap on roads these days or the quick fixes that bust every year into new potholes). Critical roads, rail transport (for cargo, not people, most cost efficient), energy grid, waterway quality, chemical pipelines (i.e. force them to be up to code and not cause massive oil spills), and computers computers computers... get the software so we can make those federal and state workers more obsolete (sorry, but I'm sick of paying the checks for the incompetent and rude DMV worker or city clerk lackey that can't process a form a computer can do at 10,000 per minute...). A significant investment now not only creates jobs, it gives cost savings and increased commerce that can increase revenues for decades (all those highways no doubt played a role in anyone and everyone clamoring for an automobile and all the money that generated in the economy).

4. Make health care competitive. Again, computers and paperwork reduction (it still is at 30% of all costs going to overhead, although some segments show these numbers dropping dramatically). Reign in the imaginary numbers of costs, doctors charging $10 per ibuprofen pill so they can balance out their books... align prices to the true cost of providing the service and make it transparent as all hell and you start to control that spiral where it can be controlled. Find ways to cut medical spending at the supply side so the cuts on the demand side that we all know are coming do not get sucked up by out of control medical inflation resulting more from bad policy than the cost of labor or supplies increasing.


I think all four of those together could move a whole lot of sectors in the right direction and make the debt picture look better in the long term by attacking debt that is generated by increasing costs. Enforcing technology standards for instance is cheap (in government dollars, yes businesses will have to spend, but it will be the price of access to the all powerful American consumer market, we better use that advantage while we still have it).

[Scoobz0202]

Ron Paul is dominating this debate, imo. Too bad for that gold thingy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Ron Paul is dominating this debate, imo. Too bad for that gold thingy.

He's really good in debates. Just comes across well-spoken and intelligent.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Ron Paul is dominating this debate, imo. Too bad for that gold thingy.

He makes too much sense for people. They don't know what to do with someone who has beliefs and follows through on them every time.

That said he doesn't have a chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

They don't know what to do with someone who has beliefs and follows through on them every time.

I'm fine with that part ... having so many beliefs that are either utterly insane (non intervention, anti-security) morally/ethically unacceptable (drugs) or both are what kill this nutjob.

And that ain't exactly an easy thing to do with me, considering how many things he's on the right side of.

[stevew]

I heard Rick Santorum was awesome again. No Abortions, ever. And we need to keep sucking Israel's dick. Plus something about the pending threat of Polygamy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Heh, good line from the AJC's token conservative blogger

There were also a couple of volleys between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul about foreign policy (because Santorum is for having one…I kid, Paulites, I kid!)

[RainMaker]

I thought the Bachmann-Pawlenty exchange was a mixed bag. Got Pawlenty on the national map a bit and I think Bachmann came across strong in her initial response. But having two candidates point out the flaws in each other likely doesn't bode well long term for them.

Cain seemed woefully out of his league. Bombed hard on the tax holiday question and for whatever reason Fox went after him real hard.

Thought Gingrich got the shaft a bit by the campaign question and thought he was right to hit back at it.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm fine with that part ... having so many beliefs that are either utterly insane (non intervention, anti-security) morally/ethically unacceptable (drugs) or both are what kill this nutjob.

And that ain't exactly an easy thing to do with me, considering how many things he's on the right side of.

Yep. I don't understand why all the candidates don't want to spend more on the war on drugs. A) It's been a colossal success. B) We have so much money to spend that it couldn't hurt to throw more money at it. C) Social engineering always works. D) Jesus said so somewhere in the Bible.

I guess he could lie like the other candidates and say something along the lines of "Yes, I experiemented with drugs like a lot of people do but now to appeal to the nutcases on the far right I will act like I am against it and pledge to put more brown people in jail" Then we can all pay to house them in jail and when they get out can pay their welfare. Glad people like the nutjob Ron Paul have no chance in such a progressive, enlightened party. Good luck for Bachmann or Romney. Paul said he is going to retire from the house after this term so I can't wait for him to run as an independent and annihilate those faux conservatives. At least this thread will last another 4 years.

[JPhillips]

Nobody wants to vote for Ron Paul. He can't break 10% in primaries and he won't do better as an independent. Whether you like him or not, you need to realize his vote totals aren't the result of a conspiracy. Most people don't like what he's selling.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Nobody wants to vote for Ron Paul. He can't break 10% in primaries and he won't do better as an independent. Whether you like him or not, you need to realize his vote totals aren't the result of a conspiracy. Most people don't like what he's selling.

Just like my debt ceiling wager. If Paul runs as Libertarian I predict 5% or higher. Friendly wager? I never said he was going to win I said he will fuck over the faux conservative candidate. And with how close the elections seem to be lately no doubt that 5% would.

(And I think I am entitled to argue points that the Democrats used to care about. Don't you wish Obama actually cared about cutting the wars down or not putting 25% of the minorities in prison to appease the rednecks?)

[panerd]

And I honestly don't think its a conspiracy. I think the American public has a lot of really fucking stupid people...

Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

[Edward64]

Straw poll

msnbc.com politics - Who do you think won the GOP presidential candidates' debate?

Results with 211 short comments
Total of 18,991 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments
Ron Paul 34.7%(6,594 votes)
There was no clear winner 23.8%(4,511 votes)
Mitt Romney 14.4%(2,744 votes)
Newt Gingrich 7.2%(1,359 votes)
Michele Bachmann 6.7%(1,264 votes)
Herman Cain 4.5%(859 votes)
Jon Huntsman 4.3%(818 votes)
Tim Pawlenty 2.8%(528 votes)
Rick Santorum 1.7%(314 votes)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Closing statements. Santorum thanks the people of Iowa. Cain repeats, “I represent growth.” Then he says, “A poet once said, ‘Life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it is never easy when there is so much on the line.’ ” This is bad poetry. In fact, it’s a line from the Donna Summer song, “The Power of One,” which was released on the soundtrack for the “Pokemon: The Movie 2000.” Those lights, combined with the polygamous Nazi mushrooms, will mess you up.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/08/12...#ixzz1UozJ3UNT

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Straw poll

msnbc.com politics - Who do you think won the GOP presidential candidates' debate?

I realize that Paul has a very dedicated following and will not equal those numbers at all in the general election. That said I find it funny that when I went to read coverage of the debate there was the obvious Bachman/Romney stuff but also Santorum ripping on Paul. Because that is who people are behind!

[Edward64]

I don't know much about her but it'll be interesting to learn more about her this year.

Republican Presidential Hopefuls Await Results of Iowa Straw Poll - FoxNews.com

Michele Bachmann Wins 2011 Iowa Straw Poll

[JPhillips]

I read that since 1979 the Iowa winner has finished first or second in the straw poll.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I read that since 1979 the Iowa winner has finished first or second in the straw poll.

But only one that actually went on to become the nominee, I think.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But only one that actually went on to become the nominee, I think.

I can't believe Bachmann won the straw poll. I do wonder if Rick Perry takes the top mantle thought now he's in.

[Edward64]

We were talking about this at work last week - suspecting someone from S&P organization had profited and wanting to see record of their investments ... glad to see the SEC investigating this.

Who started the S&P downgrade rumor? - Aug. 12, 2011

While S&P, a unit of McGraw-Hill Co. (MHP, Fortune 500), didn't give any public statement about the timing of the move, by the morning of Aug. 5, rumors were rampant on Wall Street that the downgrade would come after the closing bell that day.

Major stock indexes, which started higher on a better-than-expected jobs report that morning, were soon in negative territory, with the Dow Jones industrial average tumbling 240 points before rebounding to close modestly higher.

The rumors turned out to be spot-on correct, as the downgrade was announced just after 8 p.m. ET.

Now the Securities and Exchange Commission apparently wants to know where those rumors came from and how they spread.

[Edward64]

Hey, definitely a tangent but sorry couldn't resist. Catching up on news and saw this ... have to play the video ... pretty cool.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/08/.../?iid=HP_River

Spokesman Tom Selleck makes a total of 12 predictions in these freakishly prophetic 1993 AT&T ads. Every single one of them came true.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I can't believe Bachmann won the straw poll. I do wonder if Rick Perry takes the top mantle thought now he's in.

Yes, I believe so.