Monday, November 22, 2010

What Lies Ahead ...

Have you read Paul Krugman's column today in the New York Times?

You need to read it.

And then assume the crash position.


Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

Where to begin...

After two years of a democratic orgy that pushed through things that will cost trillions down the road, now the Democrats want to compromise? Please Mr. Krugman, don't insult us.

Lets assume for a minute that Ben Bernanke knows what he's doing (which is a big stretch). Is is reasonable and prudent to keep doing things that don't produce results? Should we expect that by some magic that something that hasn't worked for the last three years will suddenly work now?

There are hard choices to make to turn this economy around. The politicians in charge don't want to make those decisions because it is going to hurt a lot of people. but not doing the right thing is going to hurt more people down the road.

The American people are fed up with party politics. If the newly elected people in Washington (either side) don't get that message, they will be doomed to failure.

10:45 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Again I come back to Bush putting two wars and tax cuts on a credit card.

Where was the outrage then?

Obama kept the economy from going off the cliff. The Dow is up 47% since he took office. We're adding jobs, albeit slowly.

GOP judges just pleaded with the GOP to confirm judicial nominees.

I recognize that we need to rein in the budget, but we were in a financial crisis. Now that we're coming out of that, let's figure this thing out.

But the GOP continues to say "no" to everything unless it gets its way, yet it won't say what, specifically, it will do.

We all want to balance the budget. But the GOP won't offer a real plan. It's all platitudes and wishful thinking. Other than repealing everything Obama and Congress has done. Repeal Wall Street reform? Really? Let the bastards who destroyed the economy have all they power they want again?

Great idea.


10:52 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

It's easy to blame everything on the Bankers. It's hard for people to take responsibility and say they made a mistake taking out 110% mortgages. If you read the Financial Reform like I have, you will understand it makes the financial system more fragile instead of less fragile. Regardless...

Obama didn't keep the economy from going off a cliff, he just slowed the progression by introducing market interference. If nothing was done, we'd be father down, we'd be on the way back instead of being in a 2+ year limbo that will last at least another 2 years.

People don't want to figure this out, they want their checks to come. That's why nothing will change.

11:39 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Yep, they want their checks to come, Jeff, and yet Republicans just voted down unemployment benefits again. Yes, they want them paid for, but in economies such as this, we've always extended benefits.

The talk of fiscal responsibility rings hollow when they want to extend the tax cuts for the richest 2% and add $700 billion to the deficit, even while the likes of Warren Buffett are saying, "I should be paying more in taxes. Don't give me a tax cut. I'm not going to use that money to start a new business. I'm going to invest it."

So they want their rich friends to get huge tax cuts that won't help the economy, but they have no problem cutting off the one lifeline many people have left between losing their homes/buying food/etc. and not.

It's hard to defend.

11:43 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

Partisan politics aside...

Both perfect examples of what I mean "it's going to hurt". The people that pay the most in taxes are going to have to dig deeper in order to keep supporting the tax consumer. Just raising revenue isn't going to solve the problem, you've also got to cut costs. And that means the tax consumer is also going to have to take less from the public treasury.

Neither side will be happy, but that's what needs to happen.

1:40 PM  
Blogger Beth said...

I believe the word you're looking for there is "compromise," Jeff.

And I fully agree that that's what needs to happen.

But the GOP seems very intent on simply saying "no" to anything this administration wants to pass, even policy that was the GOP's idea in the first place.

1:54 PM  
Anonymous Dave said...

Some people get it. Beth. Some people do not. Jeff.

The only problem facing this country right now is that there is absolutely no common ground.

People either believe in people. Beth. Or they believe in unrestricted business forces as the true American way. Jeff.

We basically are set to see this country cease to lead the world. We do not deserve to lead because we are so self-centered. We are guaranteeing our failure by refusing to compromise. And the greatest compromise needs to come from the rigidly stupid right.

10:53 PM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

Dave you are absolutely right; there is no common ground. When people who try to come up with solutions are berated as "not getting it", how do you expect to extract compromise from that situation?

I believe in the American spirit and ingenuity, not in handouts and bailouts.

8:53 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Sincere questions for you, Jeff, in the spirit of dialogue:

Did you consider what this administration did with GM to be a bailout?

Would you have rather let GM fail, and take down millions of jobs - not to mention national pride - with it? Or did the government do the right thing in infusing the cash, giving GM a chance to right itself?

Was last week's GM IPO a good thing?

9:00 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Oh, and speaking of Bush's tax cuts, Republicans are finally starting to admit that they didn't work:

But all the folks who don't have all the jobs that were supposed to have been created already knew that.

9:03 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

GM was a bailout and still is a bailout. When the US and Canadian government infuse enough cash to take over 70% ownership of the company, it is a bailout. The government isn't (or at least shouldn't be) in the business of being in business.

GM wouldn't have gone away, they would have gone into bankruptcy just like hundreds of companies do every year. Would some people have been laid off, yes. But if the company was to be a going concern, it would have to have people to make it run. The government should have taken the position of facilitating the financing through a consortium of banks, that's it. If the company were to succeed, it would have to be transformed and became more competitive with Ford, Toyota, and Honda.

In fact, the government's interference into GM's matters almost guarantee that it will not succeed. GM still has the same old cars that people don't want to buy, they just have them in less flavors than before. The business of GM is the same business as before.

How you view the GM IPO last week depends on your perspective. It was really good for some people (evil bankers and unions), but not so good for the American Taxpayer. GM stock has to more than double for the taxpayer to break even, and that's before the evil bankers take their cut.

11:02 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Motor Trend just named the Chevy Volt its Car of the Year, for the innovation of it.

So, I don't think it's fair to say GM still has the same old cars that people don't want to buy.

11:12 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

Other than a Pickup, the top seller from GM is the Equinox coming in at 15th:

GM is the only car company able to screw up with the pent up demand for the Volt.

11:41 AM  
Blogger Beth said...

Wow. Nothing makes you happy. :o )

11:46 AM  
Blogger Jeff Hunter said...

A perfect summarization of our conversation:

Look, I hope GM succeeds. I also hope researchers cure cancer tomorrow and a bucket of money falls out of the sky.

12:04 PM  
Blogger OneMan said...

Might I suggest you read Simpon's comments in context without Krugman's spin on it.

He basically points out you have to do something and if the bi-partisan commission is not going to listened to (because it's suggestions are politically unpopular across all parties).

Also he slams Gingrich (funny Krugman doesn't mention that).

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Dave said...

All the bail-outs were started under Bush and were made necessary by Bush.

Now we're supposed to expect something different from the Republicans?

It makes no sense.

Business leaders and bankers care about "the company" - by which they simply mean profits and their share of those profits.

Democrats care about the people who make up those companies.

The difference is simple and obvious. But anyone who trusts companies to do the right thing will be disappointed - the caliber of leadership is simply not there any more. When trust is lst as t as been the only recourse of the thinking individual is regulation or some form of government involvement.

2:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home