1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

One simple question regarding Obama's Jobs Bill

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Aceventura, Sep 13, 2011.

  1. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    The alternative is for the government to get out of the lending business. Let the market handle it. I am not going to try to explain the weaknesses with the SBA programs. But, keep in mind one basic principle - when the government provides, the government takes. In most cases this will net to zero.
    --- merged: Sep 26, 2011 4:00 PM ---
    Was the housing crisis in the US government's fault? It is hard for me to keep the different points of view clear. Sometimes people say Bush was responsible or de-regulation and that Obama saved us from the "brink" (whatever that means, no-one has ever explained it to me). Sometimes people say it was Wall St. Etc. But whatever it is or whatever the combination the government has spent trillions to fix it, where did that money go?

    Again, if this was true...., but it is not. In order to get conventional financing you have to be a "perfect" risk.

    And to be clear, what I have said is that Obama has created an anti-business climate primarily through his rhetoric. I argue that it has had an impact. I further argue that when it is clear that either he won't be re-elected or when it is clear he can do no more damage, we will see a spike in activity due to people who are in a "wait and see" mode.

    We fundamentally disagree on banking regulation and the impact of government policy. To me it appears the you assume banks more or less operate in a vacuum or that they are isolated from government. I think banks are heavily regulated and heavily influenced by government policy.
     
  2. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I have not interest (pardon the pun) in any help or subsidy from government, you or anyone else. I go to the market and I am will to pay for what I need. Government is interferes with free exchange in the market. That is at the core of my issue.

    And don't feel sorry for me. Losing money or being in the red is not uncommon for people who run businesses. It happens. You either survive and come out stronger or your business dies.

    I have had failure in the past and expect a few in the future. I suspect we see failure very differently. In my world if you don't fail every once in a while you are not really testing your limitations. If you live in a boring "safe" zone, more power to you - it just ain't me.
    --- merged: Sep 26, 2011 4:30 PM ---
    I gave some specifics about me as an example. Connecting the dots. The fundamental economy is strong. Growth has stalled. Growth primarily comes from small and growing businesses. Small and growing businesses need access to capital. Capital markets have gotten smaller, stalling small and growing business growth. Capital markets responded to government. And all this is directly related to jobs growth. The number one thing government can do for Jobs is to create and maintain a healthy environment for credit markets.
     
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Let the market handle it? The market lost 8 million private sector jobs between 07 and the first quarter of 09...more than the four previous recessions combines, so it is hardly just another market cycle. BTW, more than 2 million jobs have been added to the private sector since the second quarter in 09, in part as a result of the stimulus program (as well as Fed policies).

    As to the SBA, the most effective and widely used SBA program is a loan guarantee program, not a direct loan program. In 2009, before the passage of the Small Business Jobs Act, the SBA reported $823 million in loan (guarantees). After the passage of the act, with the changes in the guarantee requirements (as well as other tax incentives), $2.5 billion in the program in 2011 to-date has been reported. That creates jobs.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/...s-find-success-sba-loan-program.html?page=all

    Continuing the tax incentives to big oil and maintaining the marginally lower tax rate on top wage earners do not.
     
  4. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    I'm sure you can track the money online. Isn't technology wonderful?

    So you're not a Keynesian. You are a rare creature.

    Okay, so Obama is unintentionally anti-business through his speeches. If that were true, I feel that the American business community has become too coddled. This is gravely unfortunate, especially with global competition the way it is today.

    You may have missed an earlier post of mine where I made the assumption that banking is heavily regulated. I'm unfamiliar with your system, but I suppose, relatively speaking, the U.S. system does have a rigorous regulatory policy as it should.

    Regardless, banks aren't stupid. They're being more careful to whom they lend because of the shit that went down. They saw many of their competitors sink into oblivion. An unchanged (as far as I know) regulatory policy has little to do with their shift in strategy in response to the economy. The government doesn't make decisions for them.

    Or is that what you want? Obama to legislate mandatory lending to business?
     
  5. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    No. I don't think Obama understands what drives the economy. I think he is in over his head. I don't think he listens to the right people. The best course of action is voting him out of office in 2012.
     
  6. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    ace persists in a reality-optional approach. i'm quite sure he still hasn't read the bill--but he says it's "not serious"---there's no reason to take that seriously. his metaphysical characterization of the banking system is a window into his personal fantasy world and nothing else. the anti-business line is a straight republican talking point---and remember that it is a direct result of conservative policy regarding regulation that this fiasco befell the system and that republican fortunes politically are predicated on substituting other considerations for that reality. it doesn't matter that these considerations are bullshit. all that matters is that they distract individually and cumulatively do damage to the obama administration by getting repeated in the conservative media apparatus at every opportunity.
     
  7. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Perhaps he should listen to Bruce Bartlett, Reagan's former economic/domestic policy advisor, David Stockman, Reagan's former director of OMB and Paul Craig Roberts, Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Treasury:

    Reagan's domestic policy advisor (Bruce Bartlett) said Wednesday that it was a myth that tax cuts are the key to prosperity, that higher taxes may actually help the economy, and reminded people that Reagan raised the capital gains rate...

    (Reagan actually raised taxes 11 times).​

    Bartlett also recently pointed out:​

    Taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.​

    It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year...​

    According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.​

    Spending was $5.6 trillion higher than the C.B.O. anticipated for a total fiscal turnaround of $12 trillion. That is how a $6 trillion projected surplus turned into a cumulative deficit of $6 trillion.​

    Ronald Reagan's budget director David Stockman called the Bush tax cuts the "worst fiscal mistake in history", and said that extending them will not boost the economy...

    And even Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Treasury with impeccable conservative credentials, who is widely credited with being the "father of supply-side economics" (Paul Craig Roberts) maintains that the Bush tax cuts made no economic sense ... even from a supply-side point of view.


    But what do they know.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Reading the bill is not a prerequisite for knowing or not know the bill is serious. You know this, why did you connect the two??? I understand some making fallacious arguments, but I expect more from you. You are either a disappointment to me or you have an agenda based on something other than honest dialog. The bill in the House has not been sponsored. The bill in the Senate is sitting around collecting dust. The President gave a speech to both chambers urging them to pass his bill, who know how many times, and nothing! And you pretend that I have a problem. Pretty funny stuff.
     
  9. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    You are the master of fallacious arguments. ;)
     
  10. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina

    No serious person on earth would disagree. And I don't. There is a theoretical equilibrium tax rate. A rate that maximizes taxes collected and maximizes economic activity. if the current rate is too low, raising the rate is good. If the current rate is to high lowering the rate is good.​

    --- merged: Sep 26, 2011 11:52 PM ---
    If true, I would probably be President right now.
     
  11. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Right. You just keep spouting "trickle down" works, short term middle class and small business tax relief is worthless or counter-productive and marginally higher income and capital gains taxes on the top wage earners (pre 2001 level) will result in the uber-rich not investing or creating jobs.

    Fallacious.
     
  12. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    ace, dear, i dont think your metaphysics are of any interest. that you have argumentation problems compounds that. the only time i've seen you make posts that are riddled with logical and factual problems is when you talk about your personal investment decisions, or talk directly about your immediate experience.
     
  13. Bodkin van Horn

    Bodkin van Horn One of the Four Horsewomyn of the Fempocalypse

    All I'm reading from you ace is "I can't get a loan and it's Obama's fault."
     
  14. Baraka_Guru

    Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member

    Location:
    Toronto
    Wow, what a bombastic claim, especially coming from someone who has yet to outline how, exactly, the president has created an anti-business environment beyond some vague reference to "rhetoric."

    Perhaps Herbert Hoover didn't understand what drives the economy either. Though I'm not sure there's a connection there.

    This sounds dangerously like a blank cheque. Considering the contenders for the Republican nomination, I'm not comfortable with this. (Especially with the theme of reactionary ideas coming from that side of the aisle---ideas that would make even Reagan's spectre flinch.)
     
  15. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Perhaps my position is confusing to you, I will try to clarify. We can raise the tax rate to 100%/200%/1,000% on some people, and if they happen to be the "uber-rich" they won't pay it - they will avoid it. As long as they have options they will use those options to avoid excessive taxation or be compensated for it. What you advocate for hurts the middle-class, upper middle-class, and the upwardly mobile poor.
     
  16. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    i don't accept your connection between tax rate and class structure.
     
  17. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    Your position is not confusing. It is one of ideological intransigence and ignoring the facts that challenge it.

    No one is suggesting raising taxes to 100%/200%/1,000% of income. You think this bullshit strengthens your position?

    We're talking about rolling the Bush tax cuts on top wager earners back to pre-2001 rates...given that it did not trickle down and, in addition, resulted in $trillions in lost revenue, the largest contributing factor to the the total debt. Further, there is no evidence that it would result in massive tax evasion, an unwillingness to invest or discourage upward mobility.

    And we're talking about short-term middle class tax cuts and incentives that help working people make ends meet and encourage small businesses to hire. Much like the stimulus program which contributed to creating 2+ millions jobs in 09-10 after the loss of 8+ million jobs in 07-08.

    Damn, its just appears impossible for you to focus on the facts.
     
  18. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    Well, read this. My business survived. My business is positioned to grow and will grow. If my business falters again, I can do other things. but that is not the point. The point is that people like me can work in a manner that is beneficial to society in terms of growing a productive business, hiring people, paying taxes, etc. OR, people like me can buy and sell commodity futures all day long, perhaps benefiting no one other than my brokerage firm. I suspect what we want is to have real people growing real businesses with real products, hiring real people. Obama can encourage this or discourage it. I am already telling my 14 year-old son, not to dare think about being an entrepreneur unless he can do it with OPM (other peoples money)
    --- merged: Sep 27, 2011 7:16 PM ---
    You confuse me. Either Obama has an impact or he does not. I argue he has an impact. Do you argue the opposite? Or, do you disagree with my view of what his impact has been?
    --- merged: Sep 27, 2011 7:18 PM ---
    Change it to 10%/20%/30%, the number does not matter. What does matter is finding the equilibrium rate! At least from my point of view.
     
  19. roachboy

    roachboy Very Tilted

    you don't understand how social systems work in the actually existing world. they are dissipative.
    your logic arbitrary outside of a very narrow ideological framework.

    so now that you're unable to defend your position on the job bill, you've drifted off into some bizarre-o series of stupid analogies. and, as usual, tried to position yourself as some kind of victim in the process.

    so we're back to what redux posted above.
     
  20. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    [​IMG]

    I give up, ace.

    When you are ready to discuss facts, not absurd inane analogies, I'll try again.