Where is the US economy headed?

@teenyboone,

I did not say anything about Obama. In fact it is debatable how much Obama can do even if he wanted to, knew what to do, and could get cooperation in Washington. America has grave structural economic problems, as does the rest of the world. Any attempt to plug holes that we find today has the potential to cause or exacerbate other problems that we don't see or that are in our future. Sometimes problems can not be fixed, they need to run their course, need to cause the pain that they are supposed to cause, pain that must teach what needs to be learned before recovery can take place. I am not convinced that there is any way out of a period of economic and social decay. These things can last centuries however. We will recover, but some and maybe all of us will not live long enough to experience the recovery.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

In theory what you say "might" be right, but it's the soul of Washington to try and "repair" things they see as "broken." They love to spend money, and that'll never change. (That's a promise/guarantee.)

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The House last night, by a vote of 258-154 (including some 25 Repubs in the majority), passed a bill giving new parents who are Federal employees 4 weeks of paid leave. If they wanted to take off longer they would have to dip into their accrued annual leave/vacation time. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at $20M/year.
I heard no mention (on the NPR story) as to whether this would be available to fathers as well as mothers. But it was noted that the military gives 6 weeks paid leave to new mothers and 10 days to fathers.
Some opponents said good idea/bad timing. Others worry that, if passed, it would only be a matter of time before Congress mandates a similar program for private employers.
The bill goes next to the Senate.

I would have voted NO. Are you surprised?

3 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Not surprised at all; almost anticipated. It's a disease of all governments; they love to spend money, and don't know how to say "no."

Quote:

Even as the economy tanks into further debt.

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

The House last night, by a vote of 258-154 (including some 25 Repubs in the majority), passed a bill giving new parents who are Federal employees 4 weeks of paid leave. If they wanted to take off longer they would have to dip into their accrued annual leave/vacation time. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at $20M/year.
I heard no mention (on the NPR story) as to whether this would be available to fathers as well as mothers. But it was noted that the military gives 6 weeks paid leave to new mothers and 10 days to fathers.
Some opponents said good idea/bad timing. Others worry that, if passed, it would only be a matter of time before Congress mandates a similar program for private employers.
The bill goes next to the Senate.

I would have voted NO. Are you surprised?

I am surprised. The cost is minimal and the benefit to the families is maximal.

This is the sort of thing which is standard in many other countries... I'm not sure what the opposition to it would be.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Quote:

I would have voted NO. Are you surprised?

Pleasantly surprised yes. I would have voted no because I don't expect other people to pay for the choices I make in life. Is that why you voted no?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I would have voted no because I don't expect other people to pay for the choices I make in life. Is that why you voted no?

So I am sitting here, Fox, wondering why this bill rankles me as much as it does.
I come up with this. I envision a couple, one with a federal job, doing okay. Part of the decision process to have a child should involve the cost. They should save money and save vacation/leave time for when the child arrives. Simple as that. No need for a government subsidy.
I admit to fearing that this could slosh over into the private sector. I can talk about that in another post.
Fox, you are a conservative and I am a liberal. I haven't kept a scorecard on things like the wars, abortion, etc.
On things economic, I would suspect that it boils down to this: we are both, I hope, compassionate people who happen to disagree on where the dividing line is between a hand out and a handout. This bill is an unnecessary handout.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

Which I would see as the correct view without putting an ideology on it.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The cost is minimal and the benefit to the families is maximal.

When, Cyclo, does a minimal cost become a significant cost? $20M compared to billions or a trillion. Who cares? It is chump change.
Assume the average taxpayer pays $5,000 in taxes. $20M works out to all the taxes paid by 4,000 families.
I swear I am not grumpy tonight, although it has been raining for 3 days,

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Indeed. Federal employees are, and should continue to be a privilaged class.

1 Reply

@teenyboone,

teenyboone wrote:

Obama is in office 137 days as of today. What do you want, a miracle worker? Dig up Ronald Reagan, then!

I wish we could.

The main problem with Obama is that he has thrown cold water on the private sector. Small business owners are playing it very close to the vest, and taking no risks. After all, you can't count on the government staying out of our business. I have pulled some money out of the stock market, to go back in at some point, but nothing grabs me. Every industry, you wonder if Obama will nationalize it next. I like the energy sector, but cap and trade, plus probable taxing policy, really dampens my enthusiasm. If oil companies make profits, he will confiscate them. The auto industry, who knows, the government can manipulate the entire industry now, it is subject to alot more than market forces. Banks, same thing.

Obama has created how many czars now? He is meddling in private industry, and there is therefore alot of room for corruption. These czars are not answerable through normal legislative actions, so he can institute new rules with the stroke of a pen. Any of his cronies that are privy to this meddling can probably make a killing in the markets now. The law of unintended consequences is kicking in big time. Corruption will increase.

The long and short of it, Obama is a dud, plain and simple. I am ready to see Washington swept clean of Democrats, period, and the sooner the better.

3 Replies

@okie,

Always playing the "fear" card; when are you going to begin making some sense? How are small businesses afraid of our government? Please be specific?

They are playing it "close to the vest," because customers are lacking, and they're not sure how they can survive without more customers.

Please provide evidence for your nationalization of businesses?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Always playing the "fear" card; when are you going to begin making some sense? How are small businesses afraid of our government? Please be specific?

They are playing it "close to the vest," because customers are lacking, and they're not sure how they can survive without more customers.

Please provide evidence for your nationalization of businesses?

Come on, ci, I have almost given up completely on you, you are so dense. If you were in business, you would understand the fear of what government will do next, how they will tax you or punish you with another law. And for crying out loud, the government now owns most of GM, for a long time the top selling automaker in this country. Technically, it isn't nationalization, but something related to it. And we already know of one congressmen wanting to nationalize the oil industry, I think Maxine Waters, who I am sure is close to the heart of Obama in political views.

Obama can tell executives of companies not to fly in jets around the country, but he can take his wife out on the town in New York for the evening, or Paris now, and spend millions doing it.

Obama has czars that can simply institute another rule or something that can affect the value of a stock or an entire industrial sector.

We are living in bizarre times. Even Hugo Chavez claims he is more conservative than Obama.

Even some liberal Democrats are troubled with Obama's executive actions, such as his czars. Even you, ci, should begin to be troubled, even as liberal as you are.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Indeed. Federal employees are, and should continue to be a privilaged class.

No. The point is that this is something considered quite common in other parts of the developed world and it should be common for ALL here in America, not just Federal workers.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Obama has created how many czars now? He is meddling in private industry, and there is therefore alot of room for corruption.

By 'meddling' of course you mean what? Remember that it was the Bush admin who originally bailed out the banks and the auto companies. By the time Obama was sworn in, we had already given out hundreds of billions of dollars. Obama inherited much of the 'meddling' from his predecessor - why don't you ever mention that?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

By 'meddling' of course you mean what? Remember that it was the Bush admin who originally bailed out the banks and the auto companies

However, to his credit Bush gave the auto companies only enough to get them to the Obama Administration. He said at the time that Obama should be the one to decide what to do with them, if anything, and that he Bush was preserving Obama's options. It was said that GM was a goner Jan 1 without government help.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Nevertheless it was irresponsible of President Bush to pour good taxpayer dollars, no strings attached, into a failing automobile industry, especially with no plan in mind to revive the industry. It has been irresponsible of President Obama to pour good taxpayer dollars into a failing automobile industry just to protect his union cronies.

I think there are many who think that had the auto makers been forced into bankruptcy as would happen with any other such industry, then it could have reorganized and dumped some of the most damning aspects of its unions and forced entitlement programs and come back stronger. As it is, nothing really has been 'fixed' to prevent the same crisis from reoccuring.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Nevertheless it was irresponsible of President Bush to pour good taxpayer dollars, no strings attached, into a failing automobile industry, especially with no plan in mind to revive the industry. It has been irresponsible of President Obama to pour good taxpayer dollars into a failing automobile industry just to protect his union cronies.

But you forget that at the time Bush decided it was unclear if this scam that Obama is using to ram GM and Chysler through bankruptcy court would work. The scam of course is to get a judge to approve immediately selling all that is wanted kept to a new corporate shell, thus circumventing pretty much the entire traditional bankruptcy process. It was believed late last year that a bankruptcy would likely need to take a year or more to complete. Given that timeline letting Obama make the call was an honorable position.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Nevertheless it was irresponsible of President Bush to pour good taxpayer dollars, no strings attached, into a failing automobile industry, especially with no plan in mind to revive the industry. It has been irresponsible of President Obama to pour good taxpayer dollars into a failing automobile industry just to protect his union cronies.

But you forget that at the time Bush decided it was unclear if this scam that Obama is using to ram GM and Chysler through bankruptcy court would work. The scam of course is to get a judge to approve immediately selling all that is wanted kept to a new corporate shell, thus circumventing pretty much the entire traditional bankruptcy process. It was believed late last year that a bankruptcy would likely need to take a year or more to complete. Given that timeline letting Obama make the call was an honorable position.

Are you serious? It was a cowardly one. He didn't want GM to fail on his watch, so he punted to the next guy. Who is now getting the blame from you guys. Very convenient.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Are you serious? It was a cowardly one. He didn't want GM to fail on his watch, so he punted to the next guy. Who is now getting the blame from you guys. Very convenient.

where I grew up little boys learn at a early age not to start something that they can't finish. Bush was under the impression that bankruptcy law being what it was believed to be at the end of 08 that he could force the auto companies into bankruptcy, but that obama would need to deal with all of the bankruptcy process. He said that it was unfair to force obama to step into such a huge jackpot day 1 of his administration. Look, I have no use for Bush generally, but in this case he made a good call.

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know