Obama's ratings

[lorene]

The news today said even though obie's team)dem's) seem ot be bailling out of politics quickly, the presidents approval ratings are still around fifty percent even with his agenda ratings falling fast sooooo...

Why has not this president been attack personally like the ones in the past would be by now had they failled to do....well...anything, in their first year of office as he has done?

Could it be because of race? Perhaps people will only say they do not like his agenda and not him because they are afraid of being called racist? Or is he as a persn really that likable that no matter how much he messes up or little he accomplishes, we still love him?

[Wyvern]

Your fixation on taxes is showing. The government does indeed produce items, most of the infrastructure is the governments responsibility to produce. Roads and sewage lines are just two examples of what our government produces. Maybe you think everything should be privatized or that no industry should have any regulations

Never said that.

Are you seriously saying you did not write that government does not produce anything? This is a quote from you from just a few posts ago,

The government doesn't produce anything.

after all look how well that worked when banking became deregulated. It should also be noted that many of those businesses you talk about were created with help from the government in the form of loans from the SBA.

And to give SBA aid the government takes away from other businesses.

If tax cuts are irrelevant, why this:

Who said tax cuts were irrelevant? I have merely shown the correlation between very low tax rates preceding major recessions.
Looks like you are in a catch-22, businesses that were created due to the SBA have to give money to the SBA so that more businesses can be started. I thought you were probusiness but here you are complaining about the government trying to help get more started. You complain that the government does not produce anything and also complain when the government helps start businesses that do produce.

[Abraxas]

They do. Revenue would have been a good deal higher had the tax cuts not been issued, because the only thing that kept them as high was the oil price crash and the emergence of new market sectors.

The emergence of new market sectors happens in a good economy.

You have cause and effect reversed. New market sectors emerge when a technology for which there is demand reaches critical mass that it can be produced readily, which in turn creates jobs in manufacturing, marketing, and selling that technology, which in turn increases both consumer spending and private income. New market sectors cause good economies, not necessarily emerge from them.

Presidents who cut them less had higher revenues.

See my NYT link in post 48. Europe disagree with you.

We'll see how it works out for them. I suspect in their scrambling to climb over one another to attract business they are going to injure themselves, but time will tell.

It is stupid because it is no more indicative than inflation rates or unemployment rates in and of themselves. Adding the two together is unhelpful. Might as well create the supermisery index by adding in the crime rate and the superdupermisery index by adding the infant mortality rate.

There is a link between the crime rate and the misery index but what does the infant mortality rate have to do with the economy?

Nothing. My point is individual indicators are vastly more useful that silliness like adding two indicators together and calling it "the misery index".

[East of Eden]

Are you seriously saying you did not write that government does not produce anything?

READ THE SENTANCE BEFORE MY COMMENT. This is what I never said. "Maybe you think everything should be privatized or that no industry should have any regulations "

Looks like you are in a catch-22, businesses that were created due to the SBA have to give money to the SBA so that more businesses can be started. I thought you were probusiness but here you are complaining about the government trying to help get more started. You complain that the government does not produce anything and also complain when the government helps start businesses that do produce.

Rather that the SBA bureaucracy, most business owners would rather reduce the excessive taxes and regulation.

[Wyvern]

Rather that the SBA bureaucracy, most business owners would rather reduce the excessive taxes and regulation.

Who is to say what is excessive? Isn't it reasonable that those people that make greater use of government provided products and services pay more taxes? Is it also not reasonable to assume most businesses make much greater use of government provided products and services than an individual taxpayer?

As far as regulation goes we have seen what happens when you deregulate an industry. When the electricity distribution was deregulated we got Enron, when banking became deregulated we first got the S&L debaucle and now the economic meltdown we are experiencing. It is obvious that industry is not capable of regulating itself, with the ever increasing drive for greater profits and without regulations bad things are bound to happen.

[East of Eden]

Who is to say what is excessive?

That's what the debate is about. In the case of minimum wage laws I mentioned earlier, there is a direct correlation between it's rise and teen unemployment.

Isn't it reasonable that those people that make greater use of government provided products and services pay more taxes? Is it also not reasonable to assume most businesses make much greater use of government provided products and services than an individual taxpayer?

You could also say these businesses benefit society more by providing employment, goods and services. When their costs are increased, they are in part passed on to the public, including the poor.

As far as regulation goes we have seen what happens when you deregulate an industry. When the electricity distribution was deregulated we got Enron,

The problem there was the regulators weren't doing their job and were cooking the books.

when banking became deregulated we first got the S&L debaucle and now the economic meltdown we are experiencing.

You're leaving out the part where government encouraged the madness of giving homes to people who had no business owning one. See the Community Reinvestment Act. Obama's corrupt buddies at ACORN were suing banks who wouldn't loan to unqualified people. It was social engineering gone haywire.

It is obvious that industry is not capable of regulating itself, with the ever increasing drive for greater profits and without regulations bad things are bound to happen.

You're ignoring the benefits of deregulation. In the airline industry for example:

"In general, freed from the rules of the CAB, regional and major airlines inaugurated new routes in droves. Airlines competed in a no holds-barred competition for passenger business. As a result, fares dropped dramatically and total operating revenues for the major national and international airlines rose to a high in 1979. The same year was also the peak year for passengers: an unprecedented 317 million passengers flew through American skies.......... The average airfare dropped by more than one-third between 1977 and 1992 (adjusting for inflation). It is estimated that ticket buyers saved as much as $100 billion on fares alone. Deregulation also allowed the proliferation of smaller airlines that took over the shorter routes that were no longer profitable for the big carriers. In sum, the major airlines probably suffered the negative consequences of deregulation the most. New smaller airlines and the millions of passengers flying gained the most."

BTW, credit for airline deregulation goes to Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Opposition came from the major airlines who feared free competition, from labor unions who feared nonunion employees, and from safety advocates who feared that safety would be sacrificed.



As John Maynard Keyes told FDR, it is naive to think business is less immoral than government. Business can't do anything to you, it is government that can force it's intrusive ways on you, tax you and send you to war. This is why Jefferson and other Founders had a healthy distrust and fear of oversized government.

[Wyvern]

Isn't it reasonable that those people that make greater use of government provided products and services pay more taxes? Is it also not reasonable to assume most businesses make much greater use of government provided products and services than an individual taxpayer?

You could also say these businesses benefit society more by providing employment, goods and services. When their costs are increased, they are in part passed on to the public, including the poor.

And thus you have the great cycle of economic life. There aint no such thing as a free lunch(TANSTAAFL), the goods and services companies provide they charge for directly and the employment they provide is what is needed to provide those services. Government provided goods and services on the other hand are provided generally free of charge other than the taxes that are payed. In the end it is always the public that ends up paying, even the poor.

As far as regulation goes we have seen what happens when you deregulate an industry. When the electricity distribution was deregulated we got Enron,

The problem there was the regulators weren't doing their job and were cooking the books.

Enron was manipulating the market especially in California. Grey Davis, the governor of the time lost his position directly due to this manipulation which led to the election of Schwarzenegger. Enron limited the flow of electricity into southern California and then increased what they charged due to limited supply. The regulators weren't doing there job because there were no regulators. An accountant is not going to find or even question the general business practices considering they are only concerned with one thing.

when banking became deregulated we first got the S&L debaucle and now the economic meltdown we are experiencing.

You're leaving out the part where government encouraged the madness of giving homes to people who had no business owning one. See the Community Reinvestment Act. Obama's corrupt buddies at ACORN were suing banks who wouldn't loan to unqualified people. It was social engineering gone haywire.

Thank you for the suggestion about the CRA. From Wikipedia: Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, "In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s", according to Inner City Press. "For example, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch commented to the Federal Reserve about the practices of now-defunct non-bank subprime lender New Century, when U.S. Bancorp bought warrants for 24% of New Century's stock. The Fed, rather than take any action on New Century, merely waited until U.S. Bancorp sold off some of the warrants, and then said the issue was moot." However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.[95]

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis[98]. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA.

It would appear that your claims are unfounded, ACORN and other advocacy groups objected to the practices but since most of those loans were not made by CRA covered banks nothing could be done.

It is obvious that industry is not capable of regulating itself, with the ever increasing drive for greater profits and without regulations bad things are bound to happen.

You're ignoring the benefits of deregulation. In the airline industry for example:

I'm not ignoring it, just waiting for the end result to emerge.

BTW, credit for airline deregulation goes to Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Opposition came from the major airlines who feared free competition, from labor unions who feared nonunion employees, and from safety advocates who feared that safety would be sacrificed.

Kudos to you for giving a democrat credit for something you consider positive.

As John Maynard Keyes told FDR, it is naive to think business is less immoral than government. Business can't do anything to you, it is government that can force it's intrusive ways on you, tax you and send you to war. This is why Jefferson and other Founders had a healthy distrust and fear of oversized government.

Both government and business are staffed by people so they are both of course equally potentially immoral. However it can also be said that business unlike government is constantly driven to produce ever higher profits by their investors and shareholders which increases the likelihood of unethical behavior.

[East of Eden]

And thus you have the great cycle of economic life. There aint no such thing as a free lunch(TANSTAAFL), the goods and services companies provide they charge for directly and the employment they provide is what is needed to provide those services. Government provided goods and services on the other hand are provided generally free of charge other than the taxes that are payed. In the end it is always the public that ends up paying, even the poor.

How do people who don't pay taxes 'pay'?

Thank you for the suggestion about the CRA. From Wikipedia: Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, "In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s", according to Inner City Press. "For example, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch commented to the Federal Reserve about the practices of now-defunct non-bank subprime lender New Century, when U.S. Bancorp bought warrants for 24% of New Century's stock. The Fed, rather than take any action on New Century, merely waited until U.S. Bancorp sold off some of the warrants, and then said the issue was moot." However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.[95]

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis[98]. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA.

It would appear that your claims are unfounded, ACORN and other advocacy groups objected to the practices but since most of those loans were not made by CRA covered banks nothing could be done.

"More than two decades on, scholars and economists
are now recognizing ACORN’s dual role in the present
“crisis�—as supporter and beneficiary of a financial regime
that made credit too cheap and easy to obtain. As
media panic mounted in 2007, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo of
Loyola College argued that ACORN and its community allies
directly contributed to current problems with subprime
loans, writing that “thousands of mortgage defaults and
foreclosures in the ‘subprime’ housing market (i.e., mortgage
holders with poor credit ratings) . . . [are] . . . the direct
result of thirty years of government policy that has forced
banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers.�12
Further, DiLorenzo argues:
The only way these borrowers could qualify for
their mortgage loans (even ignoring their bad credit
ratings) was to take out adjustable rate mortgages,
some of which had astonishingly low first-year rates
in the 3 percent range, and sometimes lower. This
is what has largely fueled the subprime mortgage
meltdown—the inability of thousands of subprime
borrowers to afford their mortgages now that their
rates have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination
of the Fed’s enforcement of the CRA (with the help
of political pressure groups like ACORN) and its post
9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for
the bursting real estate bubble and the “subprime�
mortgage meltdown.13"

From the non-partisan Consumer Rights League,
http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/Up ... Report.pdf

Kudos to you for giving a democrat credit for something you consider positive.

Thank you. Another point in my post was that big business is often in favor of regulation. PanAm used to get a government enforced molopoly of certain overseas routes.

Both government and business are staffed by people so they are both of course equally potentially immoral. However it can also be said that business unlike government is constantly driven to produce ever higher profits by their investors and shareholders which increases the likelihood of unethical behavior.

And politicians are driven to get re-elected and peddle influence. We need term limits.

[FinalEnigma]

Regarding deregulation, I'd like to note that I lived in southern California when that happened.

our electric bill tripled, and suddenly everyone was being screwed horribly on electricity.
They started this whole 'baseline' thing where if you were under it, you got a reduced rate - which was still higher than it was before deregulation - and would cover about enough to power a refrigerator. Deregulation annihilated any thought of reasonable electric bills.
People were losing their power becasue they could no longer pay their electric bill - including some elderly who were dependent on breathing machines and such.

not to mention that it put some business out of business due to the suddenly enormous electric bill. Prices went up to pay for the high electric bills, the economy exploded.

Yeah. That worked.

[East of Eden]

Regarding deregulation, I'd like to note that I lived in southern California when that happened.

our electric bill tripled, and suddenly everyone was being screwed horribly on electricity.
They started this whole 'baseline' thing where if you were under it, you got a reduced rate - which was still higher than it was before deregulation - and would cover about enough to power a refrigerator. Deregulation annihilated any thought of reasonable electric bills.
People were losing their power becasue they could no longer pay their electric bill - including some elderly who were dependent on breathing machines and such.

not to mention that it put some business out of business due to the suddenly enormous electric bill. Prices went up to pay for the high electric bills, the economy exploded.

Yeah. That worked.

Enron was guilty, but so was the state government. It didn't help either that environmentalists didn't allow enough new power plants to be built.

"By keeping the consumer price of electricity artificially low, the California government discouraged citizens from practicing conservation. In February 2001, California governor Gray Davis stated, "Believe me, if I wanted to raise rates I could have solved this problem in 20 minutes."[4]

Energy price regulation forced suppliers to ration their electricity supply rather than expand production.[citation needed] This artificial scarcity created opportunities for market manipulation by energy speculators.[citation needed]

State lawmakers expected the price of electricity to decrease due to the resulting competition; hence they capped the price of electricity at the pre-deregulation level. Since they also saw it as imperative that the supply of electricity remain uninterrupted, utility companies were required by law to buy electricity from spot markets at uncapped prices when faced with imminent power shortages.

When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped. Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain. For example, in a market technique known as megawatt laundering, wholesalers bought up electricity in California at below cap price to sell out of state, creating shortages. In some instances, wholesalers scheduled power transmission to create congestion and drive up prices.

After extensive investigation The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) substantially agreed in 2003:[5]

"...supply-demand imbalance, flawed market design and inconsistent rules made possible significant market manipulation as delineated in final investigation report. Without underlying market dysfunction, attempts to manipulate the market would not be successful."
"...many trading strategies employed by Enron and other companies violated the anti-gaming provisions..."
"Electricity prices in California’s spot markets were affected by economic withholding and inflated price bidding, in violation of tariff anti-gaming provisions."
The major flaw of the deregulation scheme was that it was an incomplete deregulation—that is, "middleman" utility distributors continued to be regulated and forced to charge fixed prices, and continued to have limited choice in terms of electricity providers. Other, less catastrophic energy deregulation schemes, such as Pennsylvania's, have generally deregulated utilities but kept the providers regulated, or deregulated both."

[Wyvern]

Thank you for the suggestion about the CRA. From Wikipedia: Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, "In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s", according to Inner City Press. "For example, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch commented to the Federal Reserve about the practices of now-defunct non-bank subprime lender New Century, when U.S. Bancorp bought warrants for 24% of New Century's stock. The Fed, rather than take any action on New Century, merely waited until U.S. Bancorp sold off some of the warrants, and then said the issue was moot." However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.[95]

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis[98]. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA.

It would appear that your claims are unfounded, ACORN and other advocacy groups objected to the practices but since most of those loans were not made by CRA covered banks nothing could be done.

"More than two decades on, scholars and economists
are now recognizing ACORN’s dual role in the present
“crisis�—as supporter and beneficiary of a financial regime
that made credit too cheap and easy to obtain. As
media panic mounted in 2007, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo of
Loyola College argued that ACORN and its community allies
directly contributed to current problems with subprime
loans, writing that “thousands of mortgage defaults and
foreclosures in the ‘subprime’ housing market (i.e., mortgage
holders with poor credit ratings) . . . [are] . . . the direct
result of thirty years of government policy that has forced
banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers.�12
Further, DiLorenzo argues:
The only way these borrowers could qualify for
their mortgage loans (even ignoring their bad credit
ratings) was to take out adjustable rate mortgages,
some of which had astonishingly low first-year rates
in the 3 percent range, and sometimes lower. This
is what has largely fueled the subprime mortgage
meltdown—the inability of thousands of subprime
borrowers to afford their mortgages now that their
rates have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination
of the Fed’s enforcement of the CRA (with the help
of political pressure groups like ACORN) and its post
9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for
the bursting real estate bubble and the “subprime�
mortgage meltdown.13"

It would seem our sources are at odds, one states that most of the subprime loans were not made under the CRA and that ACORN along with other groups protested against the practice. The other source states ACORN forced banks to make subprime loans under the CRA.
Personally I would say the commoditization of subprime housing loans with absolutely no regulations to control it along with the strong incentive to provide loans that automatically were handed off to commodities traders made an environment where there was no downside for the loan originators especially those originators that were not covered by the CRA.

Kudos to you for giving a democrat credit for something you consider positive.

Thank you. Another point in my post was that big business is often in favor of regulation. PanAm used to get a government enforced molopoly of certain overseas routes.

Actually all air routes are controlled and doled out by the government through the offices of the FAA. Just like all airwaves in the U.S. are controlled by the government through the FCC.

Both government and business are staffed by people so they are both of course equally potentially immoral. However it can also be said that business unlike government is constantly driven to produce ever higher profits by their investors and shareholders which increases the likelihood of unethical behavior.

And politicians are driven to get re-elected and peddle influence. We need term limits.

I couldn't agree more, if term limits are a good idea for the executive branch why wouldn't they be just as good an idea for the legislative branch. But of course that would be asking for them to essentially vote themselves out of a job so it isn't going to happen, just like when they vote for their own pay raises.