Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
I think a lot of our current long-term problems go back to the late 70s/early 80s - after these two were out of office.
True, Reagan was big on deregulation, but he was already on a path Carter had started.
I think the biggest past problem that needs to be addressed is the free-market worshipping, supply-side economics, tax-cuts-solve-everything point of view. Carter made steps in this direction, but Reagan made it into a religion for the GOP. Reagan wasn't the first to try it, either. I don't think current Republican economic policy looks much different now than it did when Herbert Hoover was calling the shots. We all know how well that went.
It's a zombie idea that's been thoroughly discredited. Continuing to follow that path does no favor for the country as a whole, not to mention the current state of the GOP.
call bs if you would like but look at US failed foreign policy, which i was addressing.. goes back to these two. Economics did play a part Johnson started to increase deficit spending to pay for Vietnam. At that point interest rates began to increase as spending by the government increased through Nixon and Ford. Carter inherited major problems. As result Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board who started a plan under Carter and later under Reagan flooded the economy and cut interest rates. So Carter appointed Volcker and Reagan reappointed him and kept him until he resigned. You should read up on Volcker...
I was a Poli Sci major; I'm familiar with Volcker. It's not as if he's a relic, either... he's currently chair of the economic recovery board.
The numbers you just cited show unemployment rising as inflation falls during Volcker's Carter-Reagan tenure. Are you trying to tell me that you'd prefer to lower inflation at the expense of even more American jobs?
The national employment rate is currently between 8-8.5%. Exactly how many more people do you want to see unemployed at the expense of curbing inflation?
I was a Poli Sci major; I'm familiar with Volcker. It's not as if he's a relic, either... he's currently chair of the economic recovery board.
The numbers you just cited show unemployment rising as inflation falls during Volcker's Carter-Reagan tenure. Are you trying to tell me that you'd prefer to lower inflation at the expense of even more American jobs?
The national employment rate is currently between 8-8.5%. Exactly how many more people do you want to see unemployed at the expense of curbing inflation?
Then you should know that the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator.
My bigger short-term priority would be countering unemployment rather than countering inflation. Unemployment is the lagging indicator because inflation is what you're focusing on. Like Volcker.
The more unemployment we have, the less tax revenues the government raises. The less revenue generated by government, the more money government will inevitably need to borrow. The more money government has to borrow, the faster inflation increases.
I'd still rather lower unemployment first and worry about inflation second.
Fighting inflation seems to me to be more of a "luxury" concern than fighting unemployment. That's why we're more likely to see that argument coming from wealthier (i.e. Republican-leaning) corners of society... the type of people whose income relies more on stock/currency trading, money-lending, and the like (the "wealth-not-work" class) can make a fuss about that because they already have jobs.
Kdogg, I agree with you, I think that was the first priority in the Obama administration but I think he has more resistance then first thought. There was a poll out that over %70 Americans believe he isn't doing enough to regulate the banks but most of the republicans and some dems are saying he is doing to much and equating it to socialism. As far as unemployment goes yes that would be part of the domino effect to get us back on our feet but it will not happen right away...first the money to go to projects..such as roads...then the jobs come. So people are being very limited in their vision. The stimulus packet, which was scaled back on job creation an pumped up in bailout, will not provide that jobs as immediate as most Americans want.
Also where do you stand on the auto bail-out and the proposal to by a bunch of US made cars for the government to create jobs. Personally, I would like to see the auto companies saved before the super large banks get theirs.
So you are employment increases tax but how soon and how do we get that started..SuperAmericaBank inc. NO.
Kdogg, I agree with you, I think that was the first priority in the Obama administration but I think he has more resistance then first thought. There was a poll out that over %70 Americans believe he isn't doing enough to regulate the banks but most of the republicans and some dems are saying he is doing to much and equating it to socialism.
I think it only would've been fair to make banks receiving government money have as much accountability for government funds as the local soup kitchen does. As it stands, that's not the case. That's not socialism; that's good government. Anyone who says that that is socialism is full of shit.
As far as unemployment goes yes that would be part of the domino effect to get us back on our feet but it will not happen right away...first the money to go to projects..such as roads...then the jobs come. So people are being very limited in their vision. The stimulus packet, which was scaled back on job creation an pumped up in bailout, will not provide that jobs as immediate as most Americans want.
Creating jobs a year or two down the road is better than not creating jobs a year or two down the road. I don't think we'll be hitting rock bottom (and thusly, beginning to turn around) this year. I'd rather have jobs ready for people in a year or two than not; lowering an unemployment rate this high isn't exactly a short-term project.
Also where do you stand on the auto bail-out and the proposal to by a bunch of US made cars for the government to create jobs. Personally, I would like to see the auto companies saved before the super large banks get theirs.
I'm all for saving the automakers before the bankers. But they've both committed their sins. How many years did the auto industry use their clout with politicians to perennially strike down potential government mandates for increasing innovation? - for example, fuel efficiency standards. Some of this is GM et al's own doing. I am against letting all American automakers crash and burn. There's national security consequences that make total failure in Detroit an unacceptable option in my eyes. I'll get to the bankers below.
So you are employment increases tax but how soon and how do we get that started..SuperAmericaBank inc. NO.
It doesn't just have to be work raising tax revenue. I'm in favor of re-instituting a per-transaction tax (of a fraction of a percent) on stock transactions too. Raises revenue; costs the average 401k holder around $100/year; provides a bigger disincentive to exactly the kind of greedy batardos who had a hand in creating this mess in the first place. I think it's about time the upper classes started paying something more resembling a fair share of the tax burden, but that's a rant I'm not about to get into.
I'm all for saving the automakers before the bankers. But they've both committed their sins. How many years did the auto industry use their clout with politicians to perennially strike down potential government mandates for increasing innovation? - for example, fuel efficiency standards. Some of this is GM et al's own doing. I am against letting all American automakers crash and burn. There's national security consequences that make total failure in Detroit an unacceptable option in my eyes.
The automakers dug their own grave with this one. In just about any other business, I would say that it's a free market and as such they should be allowed to go under for failing to keep up with their foreign competitors. But the fact of the matter is that there's just far too much at stake with the automobile industry.
To me, the bank bailouts are 100% needed, because without a fluid credit market, shit just cannot get done. The automobile bailout is a bit more iffy, but in my opinion, it's still a necessary evil. It's too important to not save. However, I do wish Congress had placed tighter restrictions on the bill that required our automakers to meet some higher environmental regulations if they received bailout money.
Well, I can't really say whether I'm happy or unhappy with Obama's policies on the economy and the money being given to large companies b/c that will take time before we can really tell if it was a good or terrible idea. But socially, Obama has already done some things I am very happy with such as stopping the DEA from raiding state approved marijuana shops/facilities, etc.; reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-govermental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States; lifting the ban on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research; and promoting massive government investment in green energy. So basically, I'm glad we have a president that is actually taking science into account when making deicisons. What nice change!!!
i completely share your opinion on this. economy and war are really important topics, but they are short term, in the grand scheme of things.
scientific advancements now could/will lead to even more amazing technologies in the future (or hopefully, not too distant future).
in many areas, scientific research has been stunted due to policy making based on opinion and not fact...
The automakers dug their own grave with this one. In just about any other business, I would say that it's a free market and as such they should be allowed to go under for failing to keep up with their foreign competitors. But the fact of the matter is that there's just far too much at stake with the automobile industry.
The automakers weren't the only ones digging their own grave. It goes beyond their own actions. Example: How much do American companies suffer, competitively, because their foreign competitors don't have to worry about providing privatized health care? That basically amounts to a tax on our vehicles that most competing foreign competitors don't have to worry about. That's called "competitive disadvantage," and it certainly didn't help Detroit.
To me, the bank bailouts are 100% needed, because without a fluid credit market, nuts just cannot get done. The automobile bailout is a bit more iffy, but in my opinion, it's still a necessary evil. It's too important to not save. However, I do wish Congress had placed tighter restrictions on the bill that required our automakers to meet some higher environmental regulations if they received bailout money.
I agree with the necessity of saving the credit market. This ties into what I was saying earlier, about how bailed-out banks should have at least as many strings attached to their money as the local soup kitchen. As is stands, most of them just merged the government money with their other funds - making it more or less untraceable. There was nothing attached to that money that prohibited using that money for bonuses, conferences or the like. That money should have been primarily directed towards unfreezing credit, but there were no "use this $ to increase credit fluidity" strings attached to that money.
As far as Detroit vs. Wall Street's treatment... I'd say Wall Street executives received much lighter treatment than Detroit executives.
Hey kdogg, totally off topic, but Sec. of Ed. Duncan showed up at the Neko Case show last night to talk about the arts in education. He stayed for a good majority of the show, too.
Wasn't obama one of bushs biggest critics of spending in Iraq? That being the case, why did he ask congress for billions to help fund bushs war? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, there are estimates that that kind of spending increase will only keep soldiers there well into 2011. So much for nine, I mean nineteen, months.
Post by wonderllama on Apr 10, 2009 1:51:45 GMT -5
To be fair, I believe a healthy majority of that money is going to the effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan and then some to Iraq, and I think that is more to start the drawdown process. So I suppose he could still hold some credibility on "Iraq spending." But really what's the damn difference? As long as we have troops over somewhere engaged in war we're going to have to shovel money over there. Obama has never been about ending war, even during his campaign, just about moving the war to a different location.
Oh, and we'll have US troops in Iraq until long after we're all dead I'm sure. AFter all, we still have troops in Germany, Japan, the UK, etc.
Wasn't obama one of bushs biggest critics of spending in Iraq? That being the case, why did he ask congress for billions to help fund bushs war? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, there are estimates that that kind of spending increase will only keep soldiers there well into 2011. So much for nine, I mean nineteen, months.
Bush would also underfund the war in his main budget and then get more money quarterly calling it "emergency spending." Obama was upfront about what he needed total.
....AND the Pentagon is cutting spending on things deemed unnecessary, like the F-22 and laser planes, and putting more money into the Veterans hospitals and helping Vets families and the like. Which is good.
Wasn't obama one of bushs biggest critics of spending in Iraq? That being the case, why did he ask congress for billions to help fund bushs war? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, there are estimates that that kind of spending increase will only keep soldiers there well into 2011. So much for nine, I mean nineteen, months.
Nothing wrong with being a critic of war spending. There were too many no-bid contracts, and too little oversight, on war spending during the Bush presidency. We literally lost track of pallets stacked with money in Iraq in addition to the money that was merely figuratively being thrown away to line war profiteers' pockets.
Clato's right about Bush budgetary procedure. He never did include those war efforts into his proper budget, and periodically requested supplemental "emergency spending" to pay the bill. As if a six-year occupation of multiple nations sneaked up on Bush from around the corner without warning...
These are some of the signs people had at the assorted Tea Parties:
I particularly like the people that had signs with absolutely nothing to do with taxes. Like, "Stop Murdering Babies." As if that were part of the federal budget or something.
Plus they were doing this on public land paid for by tax dollars. Plus, seeing how they have Superior knowledge they must know that the original tea party wasn't against taxation but against taxation with out representation...which they have, just because their party lost doesnt mean they are not getting represented. As far as calling it teabagging, I am glad they are out of the closet about it now our airport bathrooms can be safe....
Post by itrainmonkeys on Apr 16, 2009 14:59:28 GMT -5
Some people are so hateful. It's one thing to disagree with the president or dislike his policies......but too many times there are ignorant people who just attack. People who just look stupid. The "where's my teleprompter" sign is just dumb.......as if Obama was the first politician to use teleprompters and pre-written stuff.
Sometimes people scare me. Comparing Obama to Hitler is ridiculous IMO.
Where were all these protesters when Bush and his cronies were spending money left and right? Whose money did they think was being spent?
with this logic, i guess one could also ask where all the protesters were when it was announced that the army would be staying longer in iraq than the campaigned nine months? why werent they out spitting on soldiers and vets, and hiding their faces with bandanas the moment it was discovered that "nine months" is was just said so people could then say "he's getting us out of iraq NOW."
Sometimes people scare me. Comparing Obama to Hitler is ridiculous IMO.
sorry for the double post. i am not aware of how to post multiple quotes in one post.
geez, at least these were ordinary citizens. imagine if politicians said the same thing about a sitting president. imagine if they went overseas and spoke badly about a sitting president. oh wait, it did happen...to bush.
once again, i am not a supporter of either. i agree with policies that both pres had, just like i disagree with certain policies of both.
Where were all these protesters when Bush and his cronies were spending money left and right? Whose money did they think was being spent?
with this logic, i guess one could also ask where all the protesters were when it was announced that the army would be staying longer in iraq than the campaigned nine months? why werent they out spitting on soldiers and vets, and hiding their faces with bandanas the moment it was discovered that "nine months" is was just said so people could then say "he's getting us out of iraq NOW."
??????????????????????????
Why would anyone spit in a soldiers face because they are not gonna be out of Iraq in nine months? Where does this stuff come from?
^^^not saying i supported it, but when bush was in office there were plenty of protests regarding the war. there were also people being video-taped doing all sorts of atrocious acts to our soldiers (spitting, name-calling, harrassing, in one case (that im aware of) a push/shove). all from people who didnt support the war in iraq.
edit: i apologize. i should not have brought up the wrongs committed on our soldiers, during the protests of our past president. in the heat of the moment, i used poor judgement. what happened happened, and it should be left as such. i know that the isolated incidents do not speak for masses protests. i do apologize.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 16, 2009 22:47:59 GMT -5
Of course there were protests of the war when Bush was in office. He's the one who started it.
Your facts about Obama's plan aren't correct.
Obama said he would get troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office. Once he became President he compromised with generals, giving them flexibility that his predecessor never allowed them, and now the plan is to withdraw in 19 months. The three-month delay is disappointing, sure, but why would anyone take to the streets to protest that?
I know that plenty of military members were involved in the war protests (as in also protesting the war) . I haven't seen these videos you mentioned. Got any links?
while i am sure that many will dismiss this very quickly due to the source, but it clearly shows the hatred that many people have/had towards anything bush related. that was actually the first thing that popped up on youtube when "spitting protesters" is typed in.
i guess i might not have made my point clear. i was just basically commenting on the post regarding "where were these people when bush spent blah blah blah". i am wondering where the people that protested the war/wars are now that we are basically moving from iraq to afghan.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Apr 16, 2009 23:36:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the link. Looks like somebody did spit at somebody.
I don't remember protests when Bush sent troops to Afghanistan. If there were any, they were small, and had very little support from anybody. Pretty much everybody wanted us to go there, remove the Taliban, and capture bin Laden. We even had broad international support for that war since most of the world agreed that the US had just cause there after 9/11.
The protests didn't start until Bush decided shift our military focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. The protests went global quickly because it was obvious to most of the world that we didn't have the same just cause.
My sense is that the majority of Americans still want us to finish what we started in Afghanistan, thus no protests.