---
I can only work with proven results, not what others want things to be or theorize is possible. Obamanomics has failed to deliver prosperity, and this may be because increasing prosperity is not what it's designed to do. It could be working beautifully if its goal is to increase dependency on government and curtail American influence worldwide.

REAL American unemployment is currently 18%, not the BS that D.C. is spouting. 2 to 3% more wouldn't even register with the crew in D.C.
---

You cannot 'prove' anything in a social science. What you can do is historically look at past crises and see what worked and what didn't.

Financial crises historically have high levels of unemployment following them. This is because as in this case for the US, consumers have overspent and must spend years rebuilding their savings levels. As they rebuild them, demand is low, the demand for employees is low, and there is relatively higher unemployment.

This is historically accurate for Latin America's debt crisis in 1982, the 1990 asset bubble bust in Japan and so far entirely consistent for the financial crisis in the US.

The way you label fiscal stimulus as Obamanomics leads me to believe you think that his policies are idiosynchractic and unique. They are not. Virtually every country in the world hit by the global financial crisis has enacted the same combination of direct spending, lower taxes and looser monetary policy. You would be well advised to be aware of this.

Also, despite what you may claim, the fact that unemployment is high and has risen under Obama is not evidence that his policies have not worked. In fact again there is historical evidence to suggest the US has fared better than other countries. See the first graph below:

http://www.economist.com/node/17041738

Unemployment is measured by virtually all countries as the number of unemployed out of the proportion actively seeking work. Yes, this is not an accurate measure when previous employees have been discouraged from looking for work and have dropped out, but it is consistent with most measures used internationally.

---
Though the government obviously denies it, the origins of this financial crisis were largely the fault of government policies and meddling.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

----Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury

Keynesian economic theory does not work. It mistakes action for results. Despite enormous spending (which began as Bush was sunsetting) Obamanomics hasn't created any jobs, unless you count the temporary kick of the useless Census.

The American people have the wealth and are indeed holding onto it. There are 2 trillion dollars in assets waiting to rejoin the economy. So why don't people jump in again?

No sane business is going to invest heavily or hire workers with our leftists in power, threatening to tax everything in sight and "punish" profits. This current govt--even with the coming Republicans in January--also offers no stability or confidence, and I don't expect this to change anytime soon.

The current US Secretary of the Treasury is a tax cheat, and well before they installed the SOB they knew he was a tax cheat. Does it get any more obvious the lack of integrity and disdain for the public harbored by the crew in DC.
---

I agree that the financial crisis has much to do with government meddling. Policymakers in the US have historically encouraged the quintessential notion of homeownership frivolously and irresponsibly. At the other end equally though, predatory lending exacerbated the issue. Left to their own devices, banks knew full well that they could generate huge returns by lending, and then selling off those financial assets to wipe themselves clean of risk. They also knew that if worst came to worst, the government would bail them out as they were too integral to the functioning of the world economy. Both less intervention and more regulation was necessary to prevent what happened.

Either of these 2 factors in and of itself would have led to a crisis sooner than later, would you not agree?

I can't take a quote seriously that skips over text 3 times in 4 lines. For all you know, the original intent has been completely manipulated. For all you know (based on previous experience) this wasn't even SAID by who it's claimed to have been said by.

Besides, there is no evidence there. It is someone's opinion, without any facts, without any figures. Nothing to substantiate what is being said. I genuinely hope you don't rely on people's pure opinions as gospel and factcheck what you read.

Again, you are simply wrong the stimulus has not created jobs. It has created both permanent jobs by giving subsidies to industries, and temporary jobs to prevent skills loss from unemployed workers:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-08-30-stimulus30_CV_N.htm

Read the title of the article above.

Frankly, how is it POSSIBLE that you think it hasn't created any jobs? Where do you think the money goes? Do you think it's laundered into people's bank accounts and shipped overseas? How can you possibly think that a stimulus has not created any jobs? That the only jobs it has created are for the census is a typical right wing talking point from what I hear. Again, I implore you to consult some less idealogical sources without absolutist views.

Not to go on a tangent here, but how often have these sources you rely on information for actually lauded something that Obama has done? Do you really think it is possible that Obama has done nothing good, or let alone nothing that ideologically they would agree on? Take for example the increased drone strikes in Pakistan, relative to even Bush. This seems like a clear cut policy that right wing pundits and blogs would laud. Why is there no one mentioning this?

Or do you think that possibly, just possibly, they have an agenda or an absolutist view with which they perceive the Democrats and the left-wing that blinds them to anything that doesn't conform to their predisposed views that Democrats = bad?

Why would you want to emulate and follow the opinions of someone who cannot look at things at face value?

For your comment on why investors are not investing, they are not investing because of the debt which will worsen if taxes fall - this is historically proven as fact. But let's say for argument that taxes were drastically reduced. Demand is still low in the US though. People are still rebuilding their balance sheets. What will the multinational and wealthy corporations do with this excess revenue?

They will invest it overseas in developing markets with high growth rates. Lower taxes will be paying for growth in foreign countries. Since the money will be invested elsewhere, even less of it will be reaped back in tax revenue. Growth overseas will be rising while the US is falling further and further into debt default.

I am curious where exactly you don't agree with this logic.

I have nothing cogent to say against your notion that Democrats want to punish profits.

It does not make sense.

The buy-up of bank and auto industry stocks is being relinquished. Citibank recently bought back some of these shares, and the government made a profit. The auto industry is making a profit. There is simply no evidence that Obama wants to nationalize anything. There is no public option. The independent review committee to trim Medicare will MINIMIZE government involvement, something the right quite hypocritically, is against.

How is it not obvious that punishing profits would be bad politics? How is it not obvious that doing this would not win votes? Where is your evidence that he intends to do this? The health care plan is deficit neutral. Financial reform will reduce risk.

Will taxes have to rise? Sure, because without that, the budget will never return to neutral. This is fact. Cutting social policies by that much is not feasible. Why do you blame Obama for this and not Bush who allowed this to fester during prolonged periods of economic growth? Would you rather the problem fester while taxes are kept low and imperil the whole economy in the process? There are only those two options.

Also, I think I laid out, what is a pretty simple and logical explaining of fiscal policy, and why it works.

Where do you disagree with it?

---
Well, like you or anyone else, I'm just as likely to vote to stop the other side as promote my own. Where you live, govt is seen as a benevolent force for good. And as you can probably attest, you pay through the nose for the government services provided.

Individual > State = America

State > Individual = everywhere else

If the Republicans don't repeal or de-fund obamacare they are finished.
---

The funny this is, if I were making the same as I am not in the US, I would be paying nearly the same in taxes.

I'm a recent university grad and make 60K/year.

I pay 15% between 6-35k, and 30% between 35-60k. (4350 + 7500 = $11850)

The US income brackets are very similar.

For me they would be, 10% between 0 - $8375, 15% between $8376 - $34,000 and 25% between $34,000 - $60,000. (838 + 3844 + 6500 = 11182)

So let's see. I'm paying roughly $700 more (a bit more actually, say $1000 for argument considering the exchange rate of 0.95, but close enough) for free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidized out of hospital expenses; for generous unemployment benefits if I ever lose my job. For university cost assistance, despite the fact that I could easily pay off my university debt if I lived at home with minimal expenses in one year (It's ~25k from 5 years of study with nothing paid back yet). I hear that in the US for Ivy league schools it can be 20-30K US A YEAR. I mean that last point alone MORE THAN makes up for the difference. Frankly any of those do by themselves. I also have great job prospects being in an economy that never officially went into recession (only one quarter of negative growth) with a private sector one lined up for next year.

To sum up, I'm actually paying only 1.7% more in taxes for a WHOLE HEAP of benefits.

How is that a bad deal?

Incidentally much of our (Australia's) economic success can be attributed to good bank regulation than anything else. If you are curious I can elaborate on this.

This received the same amount of attention that the death of my friend received. He passed with unnoticed whisper as the self-absorbed around him constantly grieved over missed opportunities to satiate their predatory souls.

Why is their logo a giant arm strangling a T-rex???

Well wait, that makes sense. If I were all powerful I'd want to create unintelligible huge predatory reptiles ans strangle the shit out of them too.




ahem *quality

yah there are load sof people in the UK that just dont get it ,

they dont reolise that in the end whats required ( as is almost always the case) is a ballence of goverment regulatoin to stop supe rmonoalies and welth migratoin to the super rich. and allow for a open market that is still competative through all levels .

people who think that a "free unregulated " market is the best idea are just compleaty ignorent to the realities that not everyone is on a level playing faild to start with.

its like in motersport saying IT SHOULD BE TOTALY UNREGULATED and what you would get is the team that started with the most money winning all the time. which would result in a lack of competitoin and no real piont in taking part in the race.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.


Brits can't be free market fundies, too?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.
Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.
Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.


Yep he's a tea bagger, being British and all.

A tea bagger who trades his Joker mask for a Guy Fawkes mask is still a tea bagger.

Sorry to dash your free market fantasies, buddy, but you should know that the banking industry would whole-heartedly agree with your call for less 'state interference'. They made a lot of money through predatory lending due to deregulation and a lack of 'state interference'. The public was much better off when it had more oversight and control over the banking industry. The 'free' market capitalist thinking that has influenced our leaders since Reagan has made things worse, not better.

Downvoted for calling the other protesters fascists. Nazi Germany was a capitalist society.

Two cents from Dennis Kucinich:

"This is reform within the context of a for-profit system. And the for-profit system has been quite predatory — it makes money for not providing health care."

"My concern was that this bill was hermetically sealed to admit no opening toward a not-for-profit system, no competition from the public sector with the private insurers. Which makes the claims of a government takeover such a joke. You know, those who claim that this is socialism probably don't know anything about socialism — or capitalism."

Ah, the beauty of God's predatory insectoid creatures.

beck appeals to the inherent paranoia of those who are un-educated or ill-educated.
i posted a few months ago how rhetoric kills.
beck appeals to those who are angry,scared and dont understand the why's or what's and what beck offers is not news,nor any form of journalism.he does not offer context and repeatedly has been caught blatanly lying and making things up all for the specific purpose to incite his viewers,who are already angry and upset.
lest we forget the man who consumed almost exclusively neo-con and right wing propaganda i.e:beck,hannity and linbaugh and walked into a unitarian church and opened fore on innocents.

in the political spectrum conservative ideology has its place just as progressive ideology does.both are needed for a myriad of reasons but what we get in beck and hannity, and limbaugh for that matter, has little or nothing to do with a "conservative" ideology but far more to do with pushing a narrative to further a political party.
it is almost verbatim the very definition of propaganda.
hugh hewitt reveals himself to be a tool in just such a propaganda machine as he tries...poorly..to explain away beck and his rhetoric.if anybody actually took the time to pay attention to what has been going on you would find that both parties have abandoned their core principles in order to serve their corporate masters.
while the democrats give lip service to their progressive netroots base while enacting policy that serves the corporate elite.the republicans use inflammatory language to incite anger and distrust and use such banal terms such as :family values,fiscal conservative,christian nation.all terms used to fire up the base but when you take a look at their own policies you see a very different narrative.

in my opinion.the people who are becoming angry and frustrated.progressive and teabagger alike are ill-served by the likes of glenn beck.for while they have reason to be angry and frustrated they are no more closer to understanding WHY pr WHAT they are angry about,because the corporate media has utterly failed to inform properly its own viewers which has left these people vulnerable to the predatory antics of such douchebags as beck,hannity and even mr perfect hair hugh hewitt.
they should not be making million dollar contracts but be ran out of town in a cloud of shame.

In reply to this comment by Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous

The bank is conducting itself legally. What you object to is that BoA offers credit to people who are 'risky' borrowers. You call it 'predatory'. Hmmm - what other entity does exactly the same thing...? What organization has been telling banks to lend money to people who "can't afford it"? Whose policy is it to "spend our way out of debt"?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

My position is that it is stupid policy to lend money to people who are risky borrowers. It is unsustainable, foolish, and destructive at the business level AND the government level. But it is not IMMORAL. This womans 'stand' has nothing to do with morality. It a disagreement on how a company should conduct business.

When you disagree with how a company does business - you quit. You don't stick around violating the terms of your employment and doing stuff that will get you fired. You stand up straight, quit the job, and leave with your head high. She didn't. She slunk around, kept taking paychecks, disobeyed orders, bucked policy, and at finally got thrown out the door kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to cap it off she's got the cheek to make a whiny video about how unfair it was. Bullcrap. She got exactly what she deserved.

Now - I wholeheartedly agree with her opinion that money should not be lent to people who can't afford it. She and I are sympatico there. But she's saying it's 'wrong' and I'm saying it is merely 'stupid'.

However, I find it interesting that you agree with her sentiment that such practices are 'wrong' at a moral level. So - tell me - will you follow her example and condemn the current administration's practice of 'aggressively marketing' debt spending to people who can't afford it? After all, according to your moral code such actions are 'evil'. Will you support evil, or will you condemn and abandon it?


i never used the term evil.that is subjective.
and no,i do not agree with our governments massive borrowing practices.sadly we lack leadership in that arena.no administration has had the balls to do whats right.reagan ushered in the new financial economy while abandoning our industrial industry and no admin since has done it right.clinton balanced the budget..sure..but it took him raping SS and medicare to do it.

it angers me that average citizens are expected to be held accountable(which is right) yet our government can keep passing the buck.

as for the young lady.i see a woman who wrangled with a moral dilemma and used her supposed power to help those in trouble by breaking company policy.
i would have done the same.
you would not.
but in the end we both would have been out of a job.
our disagreement is one of semantics but at the heart i feel we agree.

if you are unwilling or unable to see the moral courage this woman has by standing up and doing what she felt was righteous

The bank is conducting itself legally. What you object to is that BoA offers credit to people who are 'risky' borrowers. You call it 'predatory'. Hmmm - what other entity does exactly the same thing...? What organization has been telling banks to lend money to people who "can't afford it"? Whose policy is it to "spend our way out of debt"?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CF8SIO0&show_article=1
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30388.html

My position is that it is stupid policy to lend money to people who are risky borrowers. It is unsustainable, foolish, and destructive at the business level AND the government level. But it is not IMMORAL. This womans 'stand' has nothing to do with morality. It a disagreement on how a company should conduct business.

When you disagree with how a company does business - you quit. You don't stick around violating the terms of your employment and doing stuff that will get you fired. You stand up straight, quit the job, and leave with your head high. She didn't. She slunk around, kept taking paychecks, disobeyed orders, bucked policy, and at finally got thrown out the door kicking and screaming like a baby. Then to cap it off she's got the cheek to make a whiny video about how unfair it was. Bullcrap. She got exactly what she deserved.

Now - I wholeheartedly agree with her opinion that money should not be lent to people who can't afford it. She and I are sympatico there. But she's saying it's 'wrong' and I'm saying it is merely 'stupid'.

However, I find it interesting that you agree with her sentiment that such practices are 'wrong' at a moral level. So - tell me - will you follow her example and condemn the current administration's practice of 'aggressively marketing' debt spending to people who can't afford it? After all, according to your moral code such actions are 'evil'. Will you support evil, or will you condemn and abandon it?

that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.

I am not one who is threatened by hearing other points of view. Have no fears concerning my mental status. I recommend that you yourself also do not have any need to feel threatened when I point out that some of what you call 'historical context' is - in fact - personal opinion and interpretation.

a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection

No argument. That's government's only real role in this matter.

when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.

I will argue again that the real issue here is not 'corporations buying legislators'. The problem is corrupt legislators. Companies can't 'buy' what isn't 'for sale'. Again - your argument when you strip away the rhetoric is not against companies. Your argument is one that calls for greater limits on government.

you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations

Specifically, I have claimed that no company controls my life. And they don't.

if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie

To accurately (though informally) describe persons of a specific political philosophy.

it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.

Please supply your sourcing for this claim. If 80% of lending was 'fraudulent' as you claim, there would be massive prosecutions going on. There are no such prosecutions, because the lending agencies were (in fact) operating within the law. In harsh reality, many of the so-called 'predatory' lending tactics were encouraged by the federal government for the express purpose of increasing the number of people with homes (see repeal of Glass-Steagal).

when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice

Yes - by changing the political system so that politicians are held accountable for their actions. By not allowing politicians to pass laws without full disclosure, 75% full congressional majority votes, and tons of other restrictions that would prevent them from being able to influence the system. The problem is not companies. The problem is politicians who are never held accountable.

All political offices should have a single term limit, and then the candidate is banned for life from all political activity except voting in congresional & presidential elections. Politicians should not be elected. They shoudl be randomly drawn up for service akin to jury duty. All laws should require a 75% majority vote of the entire congress before passing. Only one law should be allowed per bill - no 'omnibus' bills. If some 'bad event' happens that is tied to the passage of a specific law, then all the politicians who voted for that law should be the ones held responsible. And on and on...

I've literally got a BILLION great ideas along these lines of "How to stop corporations from influencing the political system by imposing limits on politicians."

winston,
i think we can agree that we have differing philosophies.
that being said,understand that what i say here is in no way an attempt not to change your viewpoint but rather to give historical context.
1.in the 1800's a corporation was a temporary venture between different companies to achieve a common goal,the charter was only allowed if it was for the "common good".when the goal was achieved the corporation was dissolved i.e:the brooklyn bridge.
2.after the civil war a few creative lawyers used the newly written 14th amendment,installed to protect newly freed slaves rights,to create limited liability corporations that would not have to dissolve but rather flourish and have rights as a person.even though a corporation is not an actual person.
3.in the the 1960's (if i recall correctly) lawyers once again got creative and lobbied to have the "for the common good" removed from the corporate charter.which in essence took any morality out of the corporate charter leaving profit as it's sole impetus.
4.a governments role concerning business should be fraud protection.why?because the government is for the people and by the people (in theory at least) and with corporation no longer bound by law to do "common good" it is the last line of defense.
a.the reason i state this is because many people echo the "free market" line.what we have now is nothing close to a "free market".when a corporation can buy legislators to enact laws that benefit their own bottom line in the form of lobbyists we move closer to a plutocracy rather than a people run government.
b.i use adam smith and milton friedman as examples to make my point.for both of these men were huge proponents of the free market but for both of these economists plans to work there needed to be an equal playing field.how can we have a free market when international conglomerates own our political leaders?they own the media so they control the message.

we are a republic.what makes us a democratic republic is our right to vote but if the message is controlled the vote will be slanted by that propaganda.the last thing our government,corporations and financial institutions want is an informed citizenry.

there are two more points i would like to make.
1.you state that you are immune to such manipulations and indoctrinations.
ok.if this is true then why do you constantly use terms like "lib" or "leftie"?
you my friend have been snookered into buying into a polemic paradigm that does not, in reality, exist.the message has permeated your views on people who may think or feel different than yourself.humanity is a far more diverse grouping than TWO ways of thinking,feeling,being.
2.i also saw that you put the responsibilty on the borrower.that in itself is not an entirely incorrect statement BUT according to the GOA it was only 20% "stupid borrowing" while 80% fraudulent,predatory and deceitful lending practices.i could go into further details but there is plenty of information out there to back this statement up.

in summary:
corporations can,and do,much good but they can also do incredible amounts of damage.the way the system is set up it comes down to cost/ benefit every time and maybe that needs to be changed,but when the government and our representatives are in bed with the very same companies that can create/destroy on such a huge scale we should all sit up and take notice.

on a personal note.winston,you sound like a pretty stand up guy but do not project your integrity onto a corporation.they would eliminate you in a heart beat if it profited them.also...dont be so quick to judge those who you do not know,understand or walked one inch in their shoes.life happens and sometimes it aint pretty.
i enjoy our conversations winston.
till next time...peace.

@ "Capitalism" Defenders:

Why do you reject government interference in the marketplace yet accept the market distorting charter of preferential protections to corporations, particularly with regard to political influence? The concentration of wealth, and thus power in corporate America is startling to say the least. You say no corporation has a hold on you, but I call BS. They control you at every turn, through lobbying, wages, and market manipulation. Don't kid yourself.

This is particularly the case with the most unfortunate amongst us. Those most likely to be interacting with BoA's "Customer Services" department. You talk about buying sports cars you shouldn't... how about paying your heating bill so your kid doesn't freeze? You'd be able to afford it if you weren't getting gouged on the interest payments for the debt you needed to accumulate during hard times. The sad fact is that many of these people are being perfectly responsible, they've just been trapped in the cycle of stagnating wages and predatory consumer debt. It's no secret, but that doesn't make it efficient, sustainable, or justifiable.

The FDIC should hire her to enforce the Truth in Lending laws. If someone is breaking the law she should throw food on their shoes. Cause that's how civil people do it.