tkhayes 348 #1 August 4, 2012 part of the email from my Congressman: "At this point, you’ve probably heard about the “fiscal cliff” coming at the country on January 1st. This is a mix of the so-called sequestration cuts that are due to gut the military, and a whole host of expiring tax provisions." it goes on about all the problems related to this.... Let's see - we are going to let tax cuts expire, therefore raising revenues. And we are going to cut spending (i.e. the military for one but certainly not exclusively) and somehow this is a problem? Sounds like good economic policy and a step towards getting us out of debt. Only a politician could find a problem with attempts to balance the budget while at the same time screaming that no one is trying to balance the budget. My Republican clown is about as good as the last Republican clown we had here in Florida.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #2 August 4, 2012 Quote My Republican clown is about as good as the last Republican clown we had here in Florida.... Liberal economists, and politicians, say taxes don't matter. In reality, they do. Hard to start a conversation there.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #3 August 4, 2012 Taxes matter? sure they do. 30 years ago we were more prosperous and we had higher taxes. show me otherwise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #4 August 4, 2012 Quote Taxes matter? sure they do. Federal government spending matters more. There is too much of that going on.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #5 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteTaxes matter? sure they do. 30 years ago we were more prosperous and we had higher taxes. show me otherwise. It's only been 11 years since the Bush tax cuts were suppose to create a torrent of high quality employment. I'm sure the "job creators" are about to let loose any day now with a massive hiring wave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #6 August 4, 2012 exactly my point - too much spending. The 'fiscal cliff' addresses both revenues and spending, hence the entire point I was making..... but thanks for helping to make my point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #7 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteTaxes matter? sure they do. 30 years ago we were more prosperous and we had higher taxes. show me otherwise. It's only been 11 years since the Bush tax cuts were suppose to create a torrent of high quality employment. I'm sure the "job creators" are about to let loose any day now with a massive hiring wave. Would those be the same "job creators" that send US jobs to Asia and Mexico?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #8 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuote Taxes matter? sure they do. Federal government spending matters more. There is too much of that going on. lol. Scooby, your whole premise seems to be based on "Gov spends too much". http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/31/government-cutbacks-separate-this-expansion-from-others/?mod=WSJBlog The WSJ (yes even the WSJ) knows this is bullshit. Its a little sad to see how anti-intellectual economics became. It used to be about real-life models. Economic models that proved to be reliable time and time again (especially with the 2008 Great Recession). People worried about hyperinflation and U.S bonds going to "skyrocket" yet 10 years U.S bonds remain at a HISTORICAL LOW (as predicted by economic models). Yet people persist on imaginary fiscal cliff (or too much gov spending) when the datas point to a lack of demand being the problem. PRIVATE SECTOR simply has too much debt. Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #9 August 5, 2012 Economics is about phycology, end of story. Tax rates, interest rates, governmental regulation, only have impact as it regards to how people feel about them. Today taxes are historically low, interest rates historically low, available cash on cooperate balance sheets is historically high, the “models would say that this should be a boon to the economy, but clearly it is not. Notice how the country accelerated "into the ditch” when it became apparent that Obama was going to be our next President? While no polices of his were being implemented, the economy still tanked, because of the collective behavior of millions of citizens protecting their wallets from the impending "spreading of the wealth" Models are good for explaining what happened, but are horrible predictors of future behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #10 August 5, 2012 QuoteEconomics is about phycology, end of story. Tax rates, interest rates, governmental regulation, only have impact as it regards to how people feel about them. Today taxes are historically low, interest rates historically low, available cash on cooperate balance sheets is historically high, the “models would say that this should be a boon to the economy, but clearly it is not. Notice how the country accelerated "into the ditch” when it became apparent that Obama was going to be our next President? While no polices of his were being implemented, the economy still tanked, because of the collective behavior of millions of citizens protecting their wallets from the impending "spreading of the wealth" Models are good for explaining what happened, but are horrible predictors of future behavior. The recession started in 2007, well before Obama was even the Dem candidate. Trying to blame BHO for the fuck-ups of GWB is lame in the extreme. Here's an indication of what investors think of the economy: S&P 500, Clinton enters office: 440 S&P 500, Bush enters office: 1320 S&P 500, Bush leaves office: 850, (Obama enters office) S&P 500 today: 1391 Change during Clinton's term, +880 Change during Bush's term, -470 (that's MINUS) Change during Obama's term: +541 Russell 2000, 1st day Bush term: 490 Russell 2000, last day Bush term: 433 Russell 2000, today: 788 Change during Bush term -57 (that's MINUS) Change during Obama term +355... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #11 August 5, 2012 QuoteBut, the whole thing was predicated by congressional policies pushed by Senators Frank and (then Senator) Obama that got people into homes they couldn't afford to keep. What policies were those, exactly?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #12 August 5, 2012 QuoteIts been my experience that when major Fuck ups happen there is more than enough blame to go around. So putting a dem label or a republican label on the mess is a waste if time. Yes, gwb was in office when the whole housing mess happened. But, the whole thing was predicated by congressional policies pushed by Senators Frank and (then Senator) Obama that got people into homes they couldn't afford to keep. When I started seeing cashiers at Publix buying $200+ homes in my area, that when I knew it was was time to sell. Sub-prime mortgages were NOT pushed by anyone except the banks. Sub prime mortgages and CDSs caused the bubble, not CRA loans.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #13 August 5, 2012 Yes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #14 August 5, 2012 QuoteYes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Your data show that the rate of job loss decreased after Obama took office.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #15 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteIts been my experience that when major Fuck ups happen there is more than enough blame to go around. So putting a dem label or a republican label on the mess is a waste if time. Yes, gwb was in office when the whole housing mess happened. But, the whole thing was predicated by congressional policies pushed by Senators Frank and (then Senator) Obama that got people into homes they couldn't afford to keep. When I started seeing cashiers at Publix buying $200+ homes in my area, that when I knew it was was time to sell. Sub-prime mortgages were NOT pushed by anyone except the banks. Sub prime mortgages and CDSs caused the bubble, not CRA loans. CRA loans created an artificial market that the banks and financial institutions gladly took advantage of. No CRA, no subprime market, no bubble, no crash. In this case it took two to tango, both are equally responsible. Of course the home owner, who took out a no-doc, zero down, jumbo, with a 10 year balloon and $20K in walking away money, was just an innocent sucker who was bamboozled by the evil bankers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #16 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteYes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Your data show that the rate of job loss decreased after Obama took office. You miss the point. It is not about when he took office, it was about when he was elected. It is not about policy it is about perception. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #17 August 5, 2012 QuoteIts called Google. Enjoy! Not only is the CRA not responsible for the financial crisis, it dates back to the Carter administration.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #18 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Your data show that the rate of job loss decreased after Obama took office. You miss the point. It is not about when he took office, it was about when he was elected. It is not about policy it is about perception. No, I didn't miss the point. You're trying to blame Obama for the problems the nation faced while Bush was in office. An objective analysis reveals the folly of your argument.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #19 August 5, 2012 QuoteCRA loans created an artificial market that the banks and financial institutions gladly took advantage of. No CRA, no subprime market, no bubble, no crash. In this case it took two to tango, both are equally responsible. Of course the home owner, who took out a no-doc, zero down, jumbo, with a 10 year balloon and $20K in walking away money, was just an innocent sucker who was bamboozled by the evil bankers. Really? Do you have any actual data to back up your assertion? The proposition that the Community Reinvestment Act caused all the bad stuff, because government forced helpless bankers into lending to Those People, has been refuted up, down, and sideways. The vast bulk of subprime lending came from institutions not subject to the CRA. Commercial real estate lending, which was mainly lending to rich white developers, not you-know-who, is in much worse shape than subprime home lending. Source Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices. … We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis. … We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil. … Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market. Source "So let the record show: CRA is not guilty of causing the financial crisis." -FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair to The New America Foundation conference: "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far?": Washington, DC, December 17, 2008 Source CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace," [Comptroller of the Currency John C.] Dugan said in a speech to the Enterprise Annual Network Conference. Source See also.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #20 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Your data show that the rate of job loss decreased after Obama took office. You miss the point. It is not about when he took office, it was about when he was elected. It is not about policy it is about perception. No, I didn't miss the point. You're trying to blame Obama for the problems the nation faced while Bush was in office. An objective analysis reveals the folly of your argument. You remind me of my old girlfriend; she would take what I said and then "correct the data". My point is; that it is psychology and not policy the determines economics. Obama was merely an example. Truth be told Obama's policies, are largely indistinguishable from Bush's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #21 August 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYes the recession was well under way (and mostly over) when obama was elected, but take a look at what happpend to the rate of job loss. 2008 September 280,000 jobs lost October 240,000 Election November, 333,000 December 632,000 2009 January, 741,000 Febuary, 681,000 March, 652,000 Your data show that the rate of job loss decreased after Obama took office. You miss the point. It is not about when he took office, it was about when he was elected. It is not about policy it is about perception. No, I didn't miss the point. You're trying to blame Obama for the problems the nation faced while Bush was in office. An objective analysis reveals the folly of your argument. You remind me of my old girlfriend; she would take what I said and then "correct the data". My point is; that it is psychology and not policy the determines economics. Obama was merely an example. Truth be told Obama's policies, are largely indistinguishable from Bush's. The data need not be corrected. It simply doesn't support your assertion.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #22 August 6, 2012 Please inform me: just what is my assertion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #23 August 6, 2012 I will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 August 6, 2012 Quote People worried about hyperinflation and U.S bonds going to "skyrocket" yet 10 years U.S bonds remain at a HISTORICAL LOW (as predicted by economic models). we see, however, what happens when the music stops and there isn't a chair left- Italy, Greece, Spain, Ireland...interest rates leap to crippling levels. Our debt level isn't there....but it's not far on the horizon to be there, so we can ignore these obvious lessons at our own peril. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #25 August 6, 2012 QuoteI will give you a little help. My assertion was that job losses increased after the election of Obama. Please show me where I am wrong. If you cannot provide a more cogent analysis please do us all a favor and stay on the porch. If it were a psychological effect of Obama being elected, then the rate of job loss would not have begun decreasing once Obama was actually in office, but it did.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
