That was interesting. He had some good points. I wonder how many have been implemented.

He also left out miles per gallon standards -- the auto industry has finally seen how their obstinancy (spelled wrong, but I am too lazy to go look for the correct spelling) about fuel standards has been self defeating on a global scale.

Also interesting in that he buried the lead on dealing with workers. He lead with cut salary, cut benefits, cut retirement. Then buried in the end -- hey, pay with stock options -- and didn't even make the obvious leap of -- turn workers into owners with an investment in the business doing well.

Tone deaf. Not wrong. Just tone deaf when it comes to dealing with the American worker.


>> ^aurens:

Romney's editorial, if anyone's interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html.
Romney and others were clearly wrong about the bailout leading to the demise of the American auto industry. But (and it's an important point, I think) that's not to say that his proposal, namely a "managed bankruptcy," would not have been successful.

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.


Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Romney's editorial, if anyone's interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html.

Romney and others were clearly wrong about the bailout leading to the demise of the American auto industry. But (and it's an important point, I think) that's not to say that his proposal, namely a "managed bankruptcy," would not have been successful.

This story is from July last year. I wonder why MSNBC didn't cover it - I tried to search through the news archive and came up with squat. I bet conservatives who argue that Obama has created the "food stamp" generation wouldn't want this to air, because it shows that people are desperately looking for work and not at home slack, sucking up rich benefits from their socialist leader.

Ford Motor Company didn't get a bailout, but they did receive a $5.9 billion loan from the department of energy.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/ford-motor-co-does-u-turn-on-bailouts/

@ghark, thanks for the links, I read all of them, very informative.

I'm sure you know that economics has more than one school of thought, which often times are very opposed to each other not only in theory, but also in their interpretations of important historical events like the Great Depression or even the Industrial Revolution. It seems straightforward that, given all historical evidence we have, there should be only one account of what went down in history, right? It's too bad that's not the case Historians are, themselves, often influenced by their own ideological bias. At least we both know it would be naïve to think all historians agree exactly on everything in history! Ask economists from different schools what happened during the Great Depression and they will invoke very opposite historic accounts.

A quick google search gave me an article stating almost the opposite of your 1st article (which is no surprise given its purpose to dismiss an alleged economic myth):
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

That being said, I'd like to address your statement that "higher taxes is bad for our economy" being a rumor spread by the rich. I could just as well state the opposite is a rumor spread by those with a vested interest on taxing other people: the government and those who aren't being taxed. Wouldn't you agree that's more likely, given there are more people with that vested interest than rich people in the world? Also, wouldn't it be more likely that, maybe, a socialist ideology would be behind an effort to spread such a statement? I'm not questioning socialism, just saying, it's very likely a socialist would take a biased interpretation of economic growth and higher taxation and state that they're related in direct proportion (socialists usually want bigger governments that require higher taxes).

Economists say controversial things like "war is good/bad for the economy", "inflation is good/bad for the economy", "when you break a window, that helps/hinders the economy", so it's no wonder that something like "higher taxes is good/bad for the economy" falls into that category.

We cannot solve all economic fallacies here, I'm just trying to point out that we should be aware of the underlying economic schools of thought to better understand the ideological bias motivating their own sets of conclusions.

Chile's approach does not seem free market to me, even if it appears to be closer to that because of privatization. All education there seems to be state funded. When the state comes into a market providing easy money, costs go up, it's supply and demand. If every student has X amount of money provided by the state, private schools stop competing over price, so tuition costs go up (at least that's what I could gather, I'm sorry if I'm not exactly an expert on the Chile situation!)

About the uneven distribution, what I was stating is that not much moral judgement can be made on distribution itself, but on how this distribution is happening. If you have more money than me, I don't have enough information to judge whether that situation is unfair or whether you're undeserving of that money.

When I consider those who benefitted from TARP bailouts though, it pisses me off , because they got money from the taxpayer, money that they're not legitimately entitled to, they didn't have to work for, they didn't deserve. That particular kind of uneven distribution is scandalous IMHO, and it's the kind of injustice that more often results from misallocation of taxpayer money that is more likely to happen with higher taxation.

Congress does not have a century of a generally poor track record. The US has been the most prosperous country in the history of the planet the last century, and it's not even close. And much of what has made the US so economically prosperous had a lot to do with gov't decisions on where to spend money such as creation of the Fed, FDIC, etc., funding the industrial/military complex which led to things like NASA, computers, the internet; federal grants, scholarships, and funding for public universities; nuclear technologies that led to things from nuclear reactors to home microwaves, electrification with programs like the TVA and the Hoover Dam which developed entire regions economically, medical funding, I could go on and on and on.



Private citizens are responsible for quite a number of things you've mentioned, and their success.

but it's lunacy to say federal gov't spending didn't play a major role



Agreed. Why did you say that? No one is arguing that point. Government revenue should be spent on these things. My argument is about who is making those decisions and if they can be better made by those who experience these things firsthand.

Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making?



Yep. Personal savings has been bad only for the past decade or so. Economic growth in the US is primarily driven by consumer demand.

So let's talk about those million voters. Have you looked at the kind of financial decisions we Americans are making. With all the talk about how banks screwed consumers in mortgages, who were the idiots who agreed to said mortgages? Way too many Americans, even during the boom, were a paycheck or two away from being broke, had virtually no savings, overpaid for houses, weren't investing/saving for retirement, etc. I'm sorry, but the general public, including voters, are god awful at handling money. Even some people who are generally financially responsible are this way because of hardline rules they refuse to break like never using credit to buy anything other than a house or MAYBE a car. Can you imagine how many businesses would exist if loans weren't taken out to start them? Such people have no idea how to be entrepreneurial and borrow money to increase productivity.



Now you're just making gross generalizations. You've given good examples of how government funded programs in the last century helped lead to economic prosperity, but cited one poor example within the last 5 years of how a minority (yes. minority) of the population made bad financial decisions. By that logic, *my* money management is bad because of someone in Nevada bought a house and couldn't afford it.

I know you're upset at my tiny, detailless post, but I think it's you who needs to get perspective before so obviously jumping the gun.

Everyone, including the president, says that "we have to work together blah blah" but time and time again it does not happen. Then comes the proof that lobbyists pay congressmen to speak on their industry's behalf, completely undermining the voters who placed them in office in the first place.

As a result of narrow mindedness and rigidity, the US is performing average in reading and science, and below average in math. College tuition is rising much faster than home prices. Gas is higher. Food is less quantity but more expensive. Healthcare costs are exhorbitant. Social security is dying a slow death thanks to Reagan. Medicare is always on the chopping block because it's costs are absurd. Unions are losing their rights. Meanwhile, the military industrial complex is doing very well, and corporate entities have cleaned up their books and are in the best financial position in decades *but refuse to hire people*.

You can have your opinions on why things are the way they are; republicans do this, democrats do that. The president did this, Bush did that. None of that matters because NOW..NOW you're unemployed,and/or your house is in foreclosure, and/or your kids won't be able to goto college because it's too expensive. And those jobs that were lost during the crisis? They're gone. They are not coming back. It's a mathematical reality.

Let's do some numbers now.

US tax revenue: 2.3 trillion
Currently 535 people in position to control budgetting = 4.3 billion worth of financial leverage each.
130 million people = popular vote in 2008 election
So hypothetically, if voters controlled federal budgets, each voter would have ~17500$ worth of financial leverage.

Every year, each person elects where they think all US revenue should be allocated. This, in essence, gives each voting citizen of the united states direct control of the united states federal budget. Also, each state could give their population voting control of their state budgets. For those people who elect to not make their allocations, either congress and state congress will allocate for them as usual, or the leverage they had is transferred into the remaining pool.

Why do this?

1. Because the people, the majority, know best. Congress by nature of their numbers is incapable of providing the best decisions because this country is a huge melting pot of cultures. Each state has different problems and different benefits, and the local citizens deal with them firsthand everyday. The representative system of governance worked a century ago because the population was a fraction of what it is today.

2. The entire us lobbying institution would literally collapse overnight. Lobbyists exist to manipulate congress into moving money into their direction. Since the budgeting decision has been given to millions instead of a couple, money spent lobbying is rendered ineffective to produce their desired outcome.

3. No more blame game since you now have a piece of how the pie gets sliced. Do you support the military? Allocate money to military spending. Support stem cell research? Allocate money to science and R&D. Want to get off foreign oil? Allocate the money to alternative energy sources. Worried about social security? Allocate more to the fund. Worried about our country's ability to compete? Allocate the distribution to education. Worried about debt? Pay it down. People always hate the government because of the financial decisions they make. Not anymore.

4. The internet can be the primary vehicle of how people cast their tax allocation and educate themselves on this important decision. For those who do not have access, they can cast their allocation at designated locations such as their local library or post office.

5. There are times when emergency funds are needed for disasters; Economic, weather, unforeseen events. Congress shall have control over that as time is of the essence. But if the money exceeds a set amount, the voting power shall be delegated to the people (for example, bank bailouts).

Look, it's just an idea and it doesn't deserve to be insulted. But if you feel better, then GO FOR IT! I'd like constructive feedback though.

WTF, you are insane, "rape the [C]onstitution"?

Do you know what a corporation is? It is a financial instrument, a pact between society and investors to encourage investing while keeping a person's house and finances shielded from being put at risk by creating products.

It has nothing to do with anything in the Constitution. It REALLY has nothing to do with electing politicians. The only thing that has happened in the last 30 years is that corporations now control elections and put more money into campaigns than individuals. Corporations have realized they can make more profit by buying politicians which reward them with favorable laws and regulations and kickbacks nad contracts at the expense of citizens who suffer from the corporate greed.

Look at the BP oil spill or Enron or corn subsidy or sugar tariffs or bank bailouts or GM bailouts or mortgage crisis. In general, corporations best interest goes directly against a health society and the health and prosperity of citizens.

I used to think that the poor were getting screwed just because of inflation, but it's more than that. it's more than control of the printing press. control of the printing press is just one thing. Even if the FED didn't print money, they would still have bank bailouts and other scams.

@DFT

One word: bank bailouts.

Second point: How exactly is our regulation of big banks working so well for us? Do we even have real regulation now?

That said, Ron Paul would probably be against campaign finance reform, so, you may have a point

It looks like this game was in production before OWS, but portrays an extreme terrorist group of so called patriots with an as yet unrevealed agenda, other than blowing things up. A response from militant nutjobs to bank bailouts, etc. I think this looks more like some extreme members of the tea party, as you might remember they showed up with lots of guns and attitude.

AIG insured it.>> ^notarobot:

Don't worry guys. The bank didn't have insurance, but they just asked for another bailout.

Don't worry guys. The bank didn't have insurance, but they just asked for another bailout.