Why Barack Obama could be America’s last big government president

[Ought Six]

He has a point, to an extent. If the economy is in trouble, the situation is unlikely to improve with massive government spending cuts. Please explain how cutting state/federal jobs and also reducing orders to companies for paper, rifles, cars, buildings etc would improve the economic situation? More unemployment and less revenue for companies sounds like the sort of thing that stifles growth to me.

The US does need to adress its rampant deficit spending and come up with a realistic long term plan to deal with its national debt. However with deficit spending being one dollar in three, you couldn't reduce the yearly addition to the debt without utterly gutting government spending. Gutting government spending would be suicidal right now.

You can't suddenly remove a trillion dollars from the economy, during a recession, and expect there to be growth. You can allow the economy to begin to recover and cut spending year on year as the situation dictates.

Right now, 40% of GDP goes to government; an astounding figure. Government is like a vampire, sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. Money that would have otherwise gone to investment and actually creating wealth instead goes to paying for government bureaucrats, paying out Medicare and Medicaid fraudulent claims, paying for useless 'stimulus' and 'green job' programs, bailouts that transfer wealth to bankers, and the like. Pumping money through the government is by far the most inefficient, wasteful way to use it. Further, government spending distorts markets, rewarding and preserving inefficiency and products that would otherwise fail and be replaced by better things. Large cuts in government spending means the people have more to spend and invest, and that is precisely what a struggling economy desperately needs.

[Ought Six]

That's what I don't understand. People hate both parties. Why not found a 3rd?

The two parties write the election laws in the state, erecting strong barriers that make it extremely difficult for third parties to succeed. Vested interests like the two-party system because they know how to work it, so they also do what they can to freeze out third parties. One of the most powerful tools is the media, which works to destroy just about any third party candidate. Even our education system programs kids to believe that we have only two parties in America.

[Corrupt]

Large cuts in government spending means the people have more to spend and invest, and that is precisely what a struggling economy desperately needs.

Except if you cut government spending, you'd be cutting the amount of borrowed deficit spending. 1/3 dollars the US government spends is borrowed. So these cut's you propose wouldn't be leaving money in the hands of the population/businesses to be spent in stores or invested and you'd have the economic damage caused by government cuts, which would destroy jobs both in the public and private secor.

[Ought Six]

Wrong. The attack on the legal framework established during the New Deal began in earnest in the late 1970s, and culminated in bringing down Glass-Steagall in 1999 via the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The relative prosperity of the decades in between are largely attributable to that framework, which had restrained the self-destructive impulses of Capitalism.

Ahh, so 'unrestrained capitalism' was to blame. I see. And as we know, capitalism is free markets working without the dead hand of massive government intervention.

Let us examine the other causes of the crisis that you conveniently failed to mention. How about the fact that people like Charlie Rangel and Barney Frank made it their crusade to see that 'everyone could achieve the American dream of owning a home'? They extorted banks and big lenders into writing mortgages for poor people who never should have qualified for them. They told banks and lenders that they would investigate them for 'racist lending practices' if they did not make these bad loans. And ACORN worked with Rangel and Frank, picketing and calling for boycotts against any bank or lender who would not write mortgages for the totally unqualified.

Another huge factor was Freddie and Fannie. They went in and bought up or insured bad mortgages as fast as lenders could write them. What lender would not write all the bad loans they could when they had a pseudo-private government corporation buying up all the risk, leaving them with zero exposure? By the time the crisis broke, more than half the mortgages in America were owned or guaranteed by Fannie or Freddie. Is this your 'unrestrained capitalism'?

No, massive government intervention in markets is what created the huge overburden of toxic debt. The Glass-Stegal repeal allowed the use of depositor funds to create SIVs, but those SIVs would not have collapsed were they not made of government-created toxic debt. The government created the collapse. Wall Street and greed certainly played its part, but placing all the blame on Wall Street and 'unrestrained capitalism' is simply an ignorant viewpoint.
----------

As for New Deal economic initiatives, several crucial measures including GNP, consumption, investment and employment had improved substantially since 1933—the low point of the depression. This was even before the added investment in the economy brought by government war expenditures.

So New Deal massive overspending kept unemployment levels at the highest level in American history for a decade, but they were a 'success'? And you really believe that? Then I can see why you think that Obama's stimulus is something of a 'success', and would be much better if we just threw even more taxpayer money down the same rathole.
----------

Oh, and the Morgenthau quote is likely bogus. Do the math, professor; Roosevelt's administration began in 1933. In 1939 he had been in office for six years, not eight. Outside of wikipedia and the media echo chamber, a single, un-sourced reference exists for this supposed quote—Burton Fulsom's flawed history “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America."

Bullsh1t. The source of the quote is not Fulsom's text. The source of the quote is a transcript of private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939, that exists in the F.D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. Do the math, professor.
----------

But, hey, since you like quoting Morgenthau so much, you should know that he regarded the Social Security program as his greatest success.

As a liberal, of course he would feel that way.... which proves absolutely nothing other than he was a liberal.. >*obvious*<
----------

As for Obama's stimulus, I thought it half-a$$ed to begin with, then it got further watered down and hamstrung in congress, like everything does. I haven't even followed it that closely because, frankly, Obama disgusts me.

Not liberal enough for you?
----------

So, the single biggest example of corporate welfare is simply not to be referred to as "corporate welfare." Yeah, um... no.

I will stick with accepted popular usage instead of your self-serving manufactured 'definitions', thanks.
----------

Pot meet kettle? Your debating style is not gentle, so I'm not sure why you're complaining now. Anyhow, I'm just going by what you've been saying in this particular thread.

I may call your argument dumb, but I have not called *you* dumb. That is the difference between fair debate and ad hominem.
----------

The bottom line for me is that a laissez faire approach to Capitalism would be a recipe for a return to a kind of feudalism, and we all know how enjoyable and productive those times were.

Laissez faire capitalism is what created and built America. Now, as we have ever-increasing government intervention in markets, and massive overspending sucking the very lifeblood out of our economy, not surprisingly we are in an extended recession that is in danger of becoming a massive economic collapse. History and current events put the lie to your silly claim. Free markets with minimal regulation are the only thing that has ever worked.
----------

Also, government investment and planning can provide an effective impetus to the economy. It's been proven countless times. Even Herr Goebbels knew that!

Tell us about all the centrally planned economies that have been so successful. This oughta be good.

[KoTeMoRe]

That's just lame, unwitty parroting.



Nonsense. Government expenditures during WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression. Large-scale government initiatives like interstate highways, the space program and DARPAnet have resulted in major offshoot boons to the economic life of the country. That is scratching the surface. To a large extent the US could be regarded as a command economy.



The Wall Street bailout alone had the US government on the hook for something like 14-17 trillion dollars as far as we know. So that alone blows your statement out of the water.

You've been fooled. Corporate power loves the government intervening in markets because that has saved their asses on countless occasions. They absolutely want a powerful state capable of acting in their interests, and I do mean their interests—not in the interests of ordinary citizens. That's where all this crap you've been wound up with comes from; it's simply clever propaganda to convince the general population to accept policies that are against its own interest. They want to keep the money when they win, and push the losses off onto the public. If you can't see that by now then you are really dumb.

Refrain from that. We have potential heads of state in here. Your input, good or irrelevant is simply a waste of your time. They know better, see better, do better.

Yet I have to see one of them self employed or managing more than a dog and a cat.

[Ought Six]

Refrain from that. We have potential heads of state in here. Your input, good or irrelevant is simply a waste of your time. They know better, see better, do better.

Yet I have to see one of them self employed or managing more than a dog and a cat.

Yes, obviously all the self-employed people and business owners in America are hard core leftists that agree with your viewpoints on economics; correct?

[KoTeMoRe]

The point is this. What is your experience managing any group of people involved in business?

Have you managed any business with personnel exceeding 5 people? I know there are folks around here with those qualifications and yet you do NOT hear them talking. But somehow we hear always the same usual suspects (including me).

You can offer what ever insight you have, while you actually base it in open source info. You can even pontificate on it, it that is your personal experience. But actually debating without intrinsic experience of management, even the slightest one, looks like parroting. On both sides.

[Ought Six]

The point is this. What is your experience managing any group of people involved in business?

Have you managed any business with personnel exceeding 5 people? I know there are folks around here with those qualifications and yet you do NOT hear them talking. But somehow we hear always the same usual suspects (including me).

You can offer what ever insight you have, while you actually base it in open source info. You can even pontificate on it, it that is your personal experience. But actually debating without intrinsic experience of management, even the slightest one, looks like parroting. On both sides.

Wow, an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Impressive.... not.

So then, no one can have any sort of valid opinion on economics if they have not run a business? Well then, your 'logic' certainly would require you to support Romney (an experienced businessman) over Obama (who never ran a business or managed anyone) to get America back on the right economic track. Glad you have finally seen the light.

[vryhpyammoadded]

That's what I don't understand. People hate both parties. Why not found a 3rd?

Tried that a couple of times and found that far too many people are simply too invested in their chosen party life support system redistributing power and money into making their lives easier to the detriment of others. Identity politics, the divide and conquer runs deep in US culture.

I thought there was a chance from 07-09 to unseat at least one party but found that human habit of slavery is near unbreakable as yet again, two seemingly at war, polar opposite social groups of US voters instantly united when an upstart grass roots political movement threatened their “other people’s money” rice bowl. Their black hats moved blazingly fast, were amazing to observe in action, and the destruction was total.

My guess is that people need to suffer a bit more too wise up to the he said, she said shell game. The problem is that choice one and two, a deeper collective built on the bones of others is so oft chosen. I prefer option three; going the other way redistributing “some” federal powers back down the state, local and individual food chain.

[KoTeMoRe]

Wow, an 'appeal to authority' fallacy. Impressive.... not.

So then, no one can have any sort of valid opinion on economics if they have not run a business? Well then, your 'logic' certainly would require you to support Romney (an experienced businessman) over Obama (who never ran a business or managed anyone) to get America back on the right economic track. Glad you have finally seen the light.

Mhh this is no appeal to authority, just saying we hear always the same folks. NONE is to my understanding self-employed, none has experience in managing groups of people yet every one speaks like they were experts including you. So I will greatly emphasize on my previous point. What are your credentials in managing a group of people in manufacturing, proofing and marketing goods and services? If you have NONE, then allow me to take your opinion on the same level that everyone else.

BTW I am not taking any one's word for gospel, just asking for real businesspeople to come forward and share their experiences.

[Ought Six]

Mhh this is no appeal to authority, just saying we hear always the same folks. NONE is to my understanding self-employed, none has experience in managing groups of people yet every one speaks like they were experts including you. So I will greatly emphasize on my previous point. What are your credentials in managing a group of people in manufacturing, proofing and marketing goods and services? If you have NONE, then allow me to take your opinion on the same level that everyone else.

Take my opinion any way you wish. And I will take your rather flexible and convenient standard of supporting the non-businessperson Obama over experienced businessman Romney while holding us to the exact opposite standard as a context in which to judge your opinion.
----------

BTW I am not taking any one's word for gospel, just asking for real businesspeople to come forward and share their experiences.

If that is what you had actually said, we would not be talking about this. But it is not. You said:

You can offer what ever insight you have, while you actually base it in open source info. You can even pontificate on it, it that is your personal experience. But actually debating without intrinsic experience of management, even the slightest one, looks like parroting.

And before that, you said:

Refrain from that. We have potential heads of state in here. Your input, good or irrelevant is simply a waste of your time. They know better, see better, do better.

Yet I have to see one of them self employed or managing more than a dog and a cat.

You clearly sought to dismiss out of hand the opinions of those without direct business experience as invalid instead of addressing the actual points, facts and logic put forward; a clear 'appeal to authority' fallacy, your empty denials notwithstanding. Using such rhetorical tricks is usually a sign of not having any truly valid arguments to put forward.
----------

So getting back to the actual subject, do you think that with local, state and the federal government already sucking up 40% of GDP, that governments diverting even more money out of the free market into wasteful, inefficient government programs that have failed miserably to help our economy is the path out of this ongoing economic malaise? Is that not exactly what Japan tried to do? How did that work out for them?

[Soldat_Américain]

You know if Congress actually cared...maybe they'd ram a budget through the whitehouse and not the reverse.

[KoTeMoRe]

Take my opinion any way you wish. And I will take your rather flexible and convenient standard of supporting the non-businessperson Obama over experienced businessman Romney while holding us to the exact opposite standard as a context in which to judge your opinion.
----------If that is what you had actually said, we would not be talking about this. But it is not. You said:And before that, you said:You clearly sought to dismiss out of hand the opinions of those without direct business experience as invalid instead of addressing the actual points, facts and logic put forward; a clear 'appeal to authority' fallacy, your empty denials notwithstanding. Using such rhetorical tricks is usually a sign of not having any truly valid arguments to put forward.
----------

So getting back to the actual subject, do you think that with local, state and the federal government already sucking up 40% of GDP, that governments diverting even more money out of the free market into wasteful, inefficient government programs that have failed miserably to help our economy is the path out of this ongoing economic malaise? Is that not exactly what Japan tried to do? How did that work out for them?

I am no american voter, I do not support anyone.

I specifically included myself in the critic...therefore I did not seek to exclude anyone. You have a peculiar way of understanding what is written. I said that he should refrain from debating with obviously more qualified people. You tend to put yourself forward as the more literate poster here, discarding every dissenting opinion and line of thought that does not follow your own. Therefore I was offering an opinion to a like-minded member, just to prevent him from being frustrated at your own litteral thickness.

[Ought Six]

I am no american voter, I do not support anyone.

I specifically included myself in the critic...therefore I did not seek to exclude anyone. You have a peculiar way of understanding what is written. I said that he should refrain from debating with obviously more qualified people. You tend to put yourself forward as the more literate poster here, discarding every dissenting opinion and line of thought that does not follow your own. Therefore I was offering an opinion to a like-minded member, just to prevent him from being frustrated at your own litteral thickness.

I understand. Being called on your BS and hoist on your own petard is never fun. Your lashing out in response is not unexpected.

[omen90]

That's what I don't understand. People hate both parties. Why not found a 3rd?

I really don't understand the idea of a 3rd party. If you look at parliamentary systems they all have many parties and all that happens is they form a coalition and all vote the same way. What the US people need to do is get money out of congress and over turn the citizens united decision.