Obama administration oversight of the banking industry

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
So, in essence, not reducing spending isnt a problem, which the president has turned down, and blamed the opposition for? All the while having total control of the democratically controlled congress? Which is what these numbers point to, these last 2 years.
Undersand something, no one is crying for a Bush return, as he is seen as a parallel to Obama in some things.
Understand also, if the economy has fallen greatly in income, you dont go asking for more, and certainly dont grow it, and lets see, who was the last president before FDR during the depression, where growth was down, even tho spending was as well, thus the weakness in your link, as they fail to make several of the connections of then and now
 
Lets put it this way, Bush was ballistic for a repub, and Obama is outspending him.
The main concerns are, poor business savvy/direction, and a smaller, less costly gov.

PS, I dont have the numbers, but acrediting Bush for all the military spending without a peep from your link shows the lean, and not as in beef
 
Note this as of March
When revenues goes down, spending and wanting to take credit for the stimulus, without bipartisan support, which isnt fully seen in the numbers.

He wants to spend his way out of this economy, has said as much, and while everything else is slowing, everything else is failing, he wants to continue to create more debt, not srop it, and certainly not slow it to the point of having higher revenues than monies spent.
Its no myth, this isnt made up, and its a subject many just wont address
 
The idea being that if the gov't puts $1000 in the market, eventually that money will be taxed and taxed and taxed to the point where it all comes back into the gov't. I think it takes 24 times of spending that $1000 to get 100% of it back into the gov't. The ROI is slow and not great because in order for the gov't to make their money back on that loaned money, the consumer needs to spend even more money which they're already doing.. the ROI is really like 80%, taking a 20% loss, instead of the on-paper thought of getting 110-120% return.
 
Truth is, Obama has no reason to spend more than previous president's.

Regardless of how much the national debt increased as a result of the leftover Bush policies, Obama has been the President for 3.5 years and can not make any claim to successfully reversing the trend.

If anything, Obama's direction and policies have only exacerbated America's fiscal problems and social issues.

Demagogue, divide, and deride...OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!!!!
 
But the Republicans put him in a no win situation?

Shouldn't we hold them accountable for the State of the Nation?

I say tax all of the imports and that will kickstart the local manufacturing base ... screw the free market economy ... you have got to protect your own people's jobs and economy.
 


Correct me if Im wrong but the budget isnt enforceable by law. Its more of a guideline of where the parameters of spending and discretionary caps.

Wouldn't the Budget control act (Bipartisan) have fulfilled those needs in 2009?
 
Obama's budget and his spending are two different things. His actions have long term impacts. He's spending on future credit.

The future presidents are going to be faced with the problems he has created. I don't think he really wants to win a second term because by the end of it, that's when all the poopoo will hit the fan.
 
I didn't read Woodward's book (yes Woodward has no reason to like Republicans) but the excerpts provided painted a pretty clear picture that Boehner got all the tax increases out of the House Repubs they were willing to give. Boehner was not going to be able to deliver the House Republican vote if Obama pushed for more tax increases and Boehner made that fact very clear to Obama and Reid. So, Obama and Reid were faced with a make or break choice; take the standing debt/spending deal or get no House vote at all. So, instead of acting in the spirit of compromise and looking out for the best interest of the American people, Obama and Reid doubled down on stupid and pushed Boehner for more tax cuts. That action on Obama's part effectively closed the door with House Republicans for further debt/spending negotiations and kicked the can until 12/31/2011.

When a leader, Obama, is unable to recognize that he has squeezed all the blood out of the rock but only tries to squeeze it harder, it is the epitome of poor leadership.
 
Facts are, either giving money directly, as in Solyndra, or tax breaks, they essentially are meant for the same purpose.
Once the monies given tho, theres no turning back, unlike undoing tax breaks, so a wiser direction there.
Supply side, as in revenues needs to be raised, and by Obama handing out money and refusing tax breaks and demanding more taxes isnt the right direction, adds immediately to the debt, and so far hasnt worked, all the while saying tax breaks are the wrong direction, instead of shrinking government, and lowering demand
 
My only concern (And you put a lot of faith into it) is why should a person who is collecting capital gains create jobs?

Romney made 15 million last year off cap gains. He didn't create any jobs.

So why does it matter if he has 15 million or 20 million. Most of it is going to accounts overseas anyway :pt1cable:
 
There is no guarantee that he did or will. He is an old man, most in his shoes will probably retire soon. Will he continue to receive millions every year for past investments and then sit on it? Probably.

I was simply using him as an example. Getting capital gains does not make you a job creator.
 
But then why is there no correlation to the cap gains tax rate and the economy?

Clinton made a profit off oh high cap gains, Bush lowered them (debatedly) and still ran an economy fine (*Cough* Unfunded wars *Cough*).

I also fail to see how buying a gold ring for 5000$ and then selling it for 6000$ later creates a single job.
 
Yes but lower numbers are easier to relate to. Im also interested in this.

So if I make 1000$ off the sale of that ring and pay a 35% tax rate where was the job created?

Logically it would make sense to have the consumer have the buying power. Look at it like this.

Mitt Romney doesnt really have any buying power. Sure he could buy a lot of homes but its not like he buys 25,000 TV's every year.

What needs to happen is we need to make it easier for the consumer base to purchase. So more money in the pocket of the average Joe consumer (You and me) means more products being sold, even at the expense of the wealthy (Keeping cap gains high). If people purchase more Widgets because they have additional income to spend the company producing Widgets needs to make more. That more material purchased, and personnel for the increase in demand. More people working the registers, more people creating products and most importantly a higher profit for those initial investors. So Romney would make money either way.

Economics 101 says that if you dont have customers you dont need workers. So lets bump up the number of customers by giving purchasing power back to the middle class.

Arent corporations sitting on trillions of dollars at this very moment waiting for the investment spring to come? So how would it make sense that business all at the same time would start hiring because capital investment is down?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom