Only serious liberals respond please

[George Whorewell]

Can you (without blaming Bush, without bashing Romney without changing the subject to something stupid or irrelevant) articulate how Obama's economic agenda will succeed?

When you look at Europe's implosion, how is Obama's economic plan any different from the failed policies which led to Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc.? Why is it that Europe knows it has to change course, but Obama insists on diving head first into oblivion?

Look at what's happening in Argentina-- another failed socialist experiment; Printing money, raising taxes etc.-- the people have had enough.

My ultimate question is simple, during the course of history, where has a centralized, government run economic model ever been successful anywhere?

No insults back and forth. Just a simple question. 

[whork]

Where do you see the economic difference between Europe and Obama? Europe is moving towards a European banking union i that is pretty centralised

[George Whorewell]

Where do you see the economic difference between Europe and Obama? Europe is moving towards a European banking union i that is pretty centralised

Jesus Christ. Re-read the first post. That's the point idiot. There is no difference. Without Germany, there would be no more EU. Think of Germany as the American tax payer.

[magikusar]

Can you (without blaming Bush, without bashing Romney without changing the subject to something stupid or irrelevant) articulate how Obama's economic agenda will succeed?

When you look at Europe's implosion, how is Obama's economic plan any different from the failed policies which led to Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc.? Why is it that Europe knows it has to change course, but Obama insists on diving head first into oblivion?

Look at what's happening in Argentina-- another failed socialist experiment; Printing money, raising taxes etc.-- the people have had enough.

My ultimate question is simple, during the course of history, where has a centralized, government run economic model ever been successful anywhere?

No insults back and forth. Just a simple question. 

outstanding post
I can only fear it won't work.
Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson seem to agree.

[Dos Equis]

[24KT]

Can you (without blaming Bush, without bashing Romney without changing the subject to something stupid or irrelevant) articulate how Obama's economic agenda will succeed?

Nope, because I don't believe it will.

When you look at Europe's implosion, how is Obama's economic plan any different from the failed policies which led to Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc.? Why is it that Europe knows it has to change course, but Obama insists on diving head first into oblivion?

Look at what's happening in Argentina-- another failed socialist experiment; Printing money, raising taxes etc.-- the people have had enough.

The only speculation that I can offer is that the US knows that as the world's defacto reserve currency, and with the ability to print it at will, it will be the last currency standing before the economic reset.

My ultimate question is simple, during the course of history, where has a centralized, government run economic model ever been successful anywhere?

No insults back and forth. Just a simple question.  

I don't know if it was so much faith in Obama's policies, as much as it was a desire to not let the politics of "obstruction at all cost" win. America is well past the tipping point, and while both candidates may represent Wall Street, Obama does a much better job at pretending to care about the middle class and those who have fallen out of the middle class, alot  more convincingly than Romney.

Not sure if I qualify as a serious Liberal, because Canadian Liberalism is a lot different than American liberalism. We're Socially Left, but Fiscally Right, ...and out of all the candidates, my 1st choice was Ron Paul, ...but that's my analysis.

[rachaelsnav]

I voted for Gary Johnson so I am definitely not a freedom hating lib and there is nothing that Obama has ever said, done or experienced that leads me to believe he has the slightest capacity or even inclination to even address this problem at the smallest level so I say let the cliff come.  Let the tax breaks all expire and let sequestration cut government and lets see what happens.  If what I understand is correct; the two events should save about a trillion over the next 10 years.  Which may fix the economy on its own, stabilize markets and kill a bunch of useless social programs too and at least we wont have to listen to politicians yammer on about it every 6 months forever. 

Lets not forget with full government intervention it took 17 years and WWII to end the depression so we have a long way to go if we follow the New Deal model, or we can just stop messing with the economy and let it fix itself and see if it happens any faster.

[syntaxmachine]

1. I don't know if I count as a serious liberal since I don't know what the word means anymore -- I think I'm liberal on social issues and somewhere not-liberal elsewhere -- but I'm going to make a few points anyway.

Can you (without blaming Bush, without bashing Romney without changing the subject to something stupid or irrelevant) articulate how Obama's economic agenda will succeed?

2. This is simply too open-ended a question so I'll just focus on one aspect of the economic agenda: the deficit. Without more revenue, the government realistically will not have any chance of paying down the deficit. Such revenue is "necessary but not sufficient" in the sense that it is a part of the solution but surely not enough. So don't take what I'm saying to mean 'if we just tax everybody more, everything will be ok.'

There is the Laffer Curve to consider (a theoretical concept that indicates past a certain rate, increased taxation actually decreases revenue) but most analyses indicate the U.S. is below its revenue maximization rate -- in other words, right now it looks like the government will be able to raise rates and thus increase revenue without stymieing incentives for economic activity. There's no proposal remotely realistic from the other side on this matter ('let's cut rates and hope for the best!').

The other concept that gets brought out in such discussions is 'Hauser's Law,' which is really just the empirical fact that government revenue as a % of GDP virtually never goes above a little under 19%. This is often taken as a corrective against calls for more taxation. "Past this point, the government won't raise more revenue as a % of GDP, so raising taxes will be pointless." That's fine as far as it goes, but right now revenue as a % of GDP is below the historical average, meaning Obamaesque taxes are liable to bring that % up, perhaps all the way to the limit Hauser's Law stipulates. But that's still hundreds of billions in revenue over the next 10 years that will help pay off the deficit.

When you look at Europe's implosion, how is Obama's economic plan any different from the failed policies which led to Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland etc.? Why is it that Europe knows it has to change course, but Obama insists on diving head first into oblivion?

3. The demented policy that led to the PIIGS was a monetary union that bounded countries with a variety of unique economic situations to a single currency. This led to all sorts of distortions such as the peripheral countries getting stuck in trade imbalances with core Euro countries yet not being able to devalue their currency -- a move that helps their exporters -- to counterbalance this. This mechanism (among others) helped drive up peripheral country debt.

Anyway, I'm not sure what you're driving at with this question: what's similar about Obama's policies and the extraordinarily complex monetary union the Europeans set up for themselves? I don't see any obvious connexions here. Do you mean that they both involve lots of centralization? If so, I don't think the centralization is the same sort at all and therefore there isn't any point comparing them.

Further, in this instance the analogy would fail since the Europeans are moving towards even more centralization as a solution to their problems: the banking union/fiscal union pair will put a huge amount of power in the hands of Eurozone officials (especially at the ECB). For example, if the banking union goes through then a central authority will swoop in and prop up failing banks rather than the local sovereign (national government).

Look at what's happening in Argentina-- another failed socialist experiment; Printing money, raising taxes etc.-- the people have had enough.

4. I'm not familiar with what is happening there, but am loathe to consider aggregate data from all countries and apply it to the U.S., let alone from a single example. This is because the U.S. is in an unprecedented position: it is the world hegemon, dominates the boards of directors for international finance agencies, has a gigantic economy that will bring the world down with it, and is still the investment world's safe haven of choice (among a million other peculiarities). This means we need to be extremely careful in saying "X happened in Y, so it will happen in the U.S. too." I don't know if there's ever been a demonstrably true use of such examples as far as economics is concerned.

My ultimate question is simple, during the course of history, where has a centralized, government run economic model ever been successful anywhere?

5. It's worked well enough in the United States this last century. I won't say more until you specify what you mean by 'government run.' The system we have has been nothing remotely like genuine free enterprise in the sense conservatives portray. Maybe it'd be better if it were. But that is a different discussion.

[Primemuscle]

Can you (without blaming Bush, without bashing Romney without changing the subject to something stupid or irrelevant) articulate how Obama's economic agenda will succeed?

My ultimate question is simple, during the course of history, where has a centralized, government run economic model ever been successful anywhere?
 

You have asked two questions here. Neither of which can be answered simply, if at all.

I am not sure that Obama's economic plan will succeed, but we may never get to find that out. Chances are Congress will remain deadlocked during this lame duck session, so that as before, if there are any changes they will be so compromised that they will have little impact on improving the economy. Any progress will likely be so limited that it all but won't exist. It makes me very sad that I feel this way.

As to your second question, it seems to me looking back through the history of mankind that all governments and societies eventually crash and burn and then later sometimes rise from the ashes. In the past, some nations built considerable wealth (for their leaders) through war and by conquering other nations then taking the spoils, including enslaving the people. During the industrial revolution, the industrialist achieved considerable, sometimes unbelievable wealth, usually on the backs of cheap labor, including child labor. For a time centralized government can be economically successful, but times change. What is successful one day can become a failure in the future.

My questions to you are these: What model do you propose to achieve economic success? Who enjoys that success and who pays for it? What do you see the role of centralized government as being?

Can a liberal also be a realist?

[tbombz]

Your question is based on a faulty premise - Obama doesnt advocate a centralized command economy.  He is a moderate mixed market capitalist.

As for the problems the E.U. is facing - mainly debt.

[_bruce_]

Around ~2 trillion are missing...?
Obama will, like any politician, talk up a storm of how it all will succeed if everybody works more and earns less*
Rinse and repeat.

*excluding folks in higher government positions

[Primemuscle]

Around ~2 trillion are missing...?
Obama will, like any politician, talk up a storm of how it all will succeed if everybody works more and earns less*
Rinse and repeat.
 
*excluding folks in higher government positions

The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

Thus, U.S. Presidents have not seen an increase in salary in the last 11 years (almost 12 years). Meanwhile, CPI has increased 35.9% since 2001. The bottom line is this job does not pay nearly as well as it once did (you can do the math). By my calculations, the President's combined salary package is down about $205 thousand a year when you factor in CPI.

[syntaxmachine]

I think it'd make sense to have some responses from George at this point in the discussion.

[George Whorewell]

The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment. The most recent raise in salary was approved by Congress and President Bill Clinton in 1999 and went into effect in 2001.

Thus, U.S. Presidents have not seen an increase in salary in the last 11 years (almost 12 years). Meanwhile, CPI has increased 35.9% since 2001. The bottom line is this job does not pay nearly as well as it once did (you can do the math). By my calculations, the President's combined salary package is down about $205 thousand a year when you factor in CPI.

He's not talking about annual salary. Up until a few months ago insider trading was legal if you were a member of Congress. How many of these so called civil servants enter politics with no money and leave multimillionaires? Go down the line and examine the wealthiest people in Government. They were either rich and have gotten exponentially richer, or were average and have now become rich. Throw in the pay offs, sweetheart deals, outright bribes, etc.  Annual salary is irrelevant.

[George Whorewell]

You have asked two questions here. Neither of which can be answered simply, if at all.

I am not sure that Obama's economic plan will succeed, but we may never get to find that out. Chances are Congress will remain deadlocked during this lame duck session, so that as before, if there are any changes they will be so compromised that they will have little impact on improving the economy. Any progress will likely be so limited that it all but won't exist. It makes me very sad that I feel this way.

As to your second question, it seems to me looking back through the history of mankind that all governments and societies eventually crash and burn and then later sometimes rise from the ashes. In the past, some nations built considerable wealth (for their leaders) through war and by conquering other nations then taking the spoils, including enslaving the people. During the industrial revolution, the industrialist achieved considerable, sometimes unbelievable wealth, usually on the backs of cheap labor, including child labor. For a time centralized government can be economically successful, but times change. What is successful one day can become a failure in the future.

My questions to you are these: What model do you propose to achieve economic success? Who enjoys that success and who pays for it? What do you see the role of centralized government as being?

Can a liberal also be a realist?

I am wholly convinced Obama will fail for one simple reason. The responses in this thread are as circuitous, unclear and overly complicated as the lame explanations Obama's economic lackeys have released for public consumption since 2008. Here's what we do know-- His first term plan failed miserably and he has shown absolutely no inclination to change course. Period.

Just out of curiosity (because it seems that everyone on the left has learned a new supposedly bad word "gridlock"), what would you propose Congress do to work with the President that would have a positive effect on the economy? I am honestly asking, because not a single piece of  consequential "Bipartisan" (another overused word) legislation has been proposed, suggested or co-authored between the GOP and Obama since he took office.  Why is it that when it comes to ending "gridlock" its always a one way street? Does bipartisanship mean just destroying job creation a little bit? How about trampling on the constitution just a smidgen? Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama wants to continue running trillion dollar deficits until hell freezes over. Obama and the Democrats have not passed a budget in almost five years. Obama and the Democrats don't want any serious entitlement reform. So what exactly should Congress do? I suppose they should say-- "Oh well, we tried-- let's just step on the gas pedal holding hands with the President until we permanently drive the country off a cliff and into the point of no return.

As usual, the problem has been misstated. The problem is not fucking "gridlock". It's spending and debt. Spending and debt. Spending and debt.

The path to economic success is no mystery. It's the same path currently being taken by several countries in the developing world. It's the same basic model that brought the United States prolonged prosperity. Lower taxes, more incentives for job creators, less regulation, less government spending, a strong monetary policy that strengthens the value of our currency, etc.--- All things that have been proven to work.

Contrast our current situation; Show me where high taxes, high debt, out of control spending, a massive regulatory system, a weak currency and an unsustainable social welfare State has been successful since the dawn of mankind. These are all aspects of a failing economy. This is not opinion, it is fact.

Government creates nothing. It confiscates wealth and prints money. That's it.

Rome collapsed in similar fashion. The courts became corrupt, taxes were out of control, the standard of living fell dramatically and the city dwellers decided that the party was over. A sizable portion of the population fled Roman cities and ventured into the country. This flight was known as Suburbia. Without the tax revenue to prop up its failing empire, Rome collapsed. The same has happened in major American cities with the creation of suburbs. Now consider the states in the Union which are broke. California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois among others. All solidly blue states. All have high taxes, extremely powerful labor unions, outrageous regulations, and an urban population living on the dole for generation after generation. We now have a President who is a staunch advocate of the failed policies instituted by all of the aforementioned states.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that America is fucked.

The role of government is to render basic services and protect the citizenry; roads, bridges, public schools, police, sanitation, fire dept., to produce and sustain a military, to secure our borders, etc. This is not a finite list, but that sets forth most legitimate functions of the Government IMO.

I'll get to the rest of your questions at some point this evening.  

[Primemuscle]

He's not talking about annual salary. Up until a few months ago insider trading was legal if you were a member of Congress. How many of these so called civil servants enter politics with no money and leave multimillionaires? Go down the line and examine the wealthiest people in Government. They were either rich and have gotten exponentially richer, or were average and have now become rich. Throw in the pay offs, sweetheart deals, outright bribes, etc.  Annual salary is irrelevant.

Proof?

I personally know politicians who are not wealthy.

[George Whorewell]

That's great.

And who are you again? 

Harry Reid is a good citation for starters. Right now he makes around $190,000-- the most he's ever made salary wise. Yet he's worth 10 million dollars.

OpenSecrets.org has all the information you need on Reid and everyone else in Washington that has been fistfucking America since taking office.

[Primemuscle]

That's great.

And who are you again? 

-Right. I guess anyone can say they know people. Who I am in real life will just have to remain my business. So, you can believe what I post or not. Just like I can believe what you post or not. That's the way it is on Getbig.

Harry Reid is a good citation for starters. Right now he makes around $190,000-- the most he's ever made salary wise. Yet he's worth 10 million dollars.

OpenSecrets.org has all the information you need on Reid and everyone else in Washington that has been fistfucking America since taking office.

Check out Senator Kurt Schrader (D-Ore) on OpenSecrets.org. Without going into details (for obvious reasons) he is someone I know....not to suggest we are best friends or anything but we've met a few times and talked. He is the Senator for my district.

I wouldn't say he his breaking the bank. In fact, it is a good thing he has a long standing business from which he earns most of his income.

[magikusar]

can't be justified, but commies will call you raceist for pointing out the fact lol

[24KT]

Proof?

I personally know politicians who are not wealthy.

Prime, he speaks the truth. When you're on committees that oversee policy, or you have inside information about pending legislation, you understand how this will impact the markets. It doesn't take a genious or rocket scientist to know how to invest at that point.

If you know naked x-rays and TSA molestations will become everyday occurences, you'll know to invest in the naked x-ray company in advance. If you know legislation is going to cut into profit margins of certain companies, you'll know when to short them in advance.

Supposedly the next big thing they're all horny over is project unicorn, or project pegasus or some such. They're about to put a stop to the insider trading this year.

[Primemuscle]

Prime, he speaks the truth. When you're on committees that oversee policy, or you have inside information about pending legislation, you understand how this will impact the markets. It doesn't take a genious or rocket scientist to know how to invest at that point.

If you know naked x-rays and TSA molestations will become everyday occurences, you'll know to invest in the naked x-ray company in advance. If you know legislation is going to cut into profit margins of certain companies, you'll know when to short them in advance.

Supposedly the next big thing they're all horny over is project unicorn, or project pegasus or some such. They're about to put a stop to the insider trading this year.

Well, it seems like an excellent idea to put a stop to all insider trading by politicians. I don't mind if politicans are rich or if they are poor as long as they vote right on the issues I care about. However, I see no reason why they should have advantages none of the rest of us are allowed legally. This insider trading issue with them must have really pissed Martha Stewart off when she was caught doing it and subsequently sent to jail.

I am not rich. I don't mind if some people are rich as long as they don't make their money off the backs of other people or by doing what some of us are too honest to do. Integrity is an important attribute to have, although it seems to be out of fashion lately.