By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 12 May 2013
Edit Thread
theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
Politics is sickening. What a waste of time.
Country is back on track lets fucking shit on obama over and over.
Makes sense.


It's really only on track if your SUPER rich or own stocks.  

The stock market is up, great for people who own money or stocks. (Think people in unions, with retirement plans, smarter frugal people)

~120% or so of income growth has gone to the top 1% (in otherwords, the bottom 99% have lost income, more specifically the less rich and middle class.  Hence why the gini coefficent isn't hugely effected. Also worth noting, it's not even the 1% so much as specific people in that one percent that are in specific fields.  Like stocks.)

and non payroll benefits actually saw a reduction last economic report, in the first time in a long time... as people get ready for Obamacare, because Obamacare penalties are based on employee numbers at the end of... I want to say this year. (Maybe 2014?)  

 

Which is sadly ironic.

Though again.. that's thanks to Bernake, not Obama.  Monetary policy can't really help the poor and lower middle class... since they rarely have access to financial institutions... and things that only increase the stock market increase the value of already owned assets... and who wants to sell those assets when they're the only things doing well?

The stimulus hasn't really done anything... for different reasons ranging from "Stimulus don't work" to the Keynsian interpretation of "Stimulus' don't work when you have a high trade deficit".

I'd actually credit the growth to republicans who refuse to approve laws that support the middle and lower class, and earmark bills to support that top one percent.

The stimulus did work, though...unless you can somehow prove that we would be in the same position now than without. Do you also include the bailouts in this administration non-necessity?

I wouldn't blame just this administration.  Bush played his part in the bailouts too.  If he didn't support them, the Republican house wouldn't of been pressured to crumble after tey voted against bailing out wallstreet the first time.  The Bank bailouts were 100% not needed. 

They should of let the banks fail, force them to sell of their debts, and just "amnesty" what they couldn't sell.

and if their was the huge credit seizup?   Use the money that was spent bailing out the banks to temporary give out strict loans.

Or at the VERY least.  If they did bail them out.  force them to break up into smaller regional banks that weren't too big to fail.

 

Instead we said "You are too big to important to let us fail, even though you made huge risky mistakes, here's a bunch of free money!"   Then we passed a bunch of half hearted regulations that let the big banks get bigger, because regulation is the buisnesss world equivelent to a flat tax.  It hurts small buisnesses more the large ones... because large ones can afford the cost of compliance.

I mean shit, in the panic storm they had to throw free money at the banks they didn't even specifiy what that money had to be spent on, so a lot of it went straight to CEO bonuses.

Though to be fair to the CEOs... I suppose convincing the government to give you a bunch of free money with no strings attached is a pretty good accomplishment.  Creating a situation where even if you lose... you win.

 

Hell if the government did that for me... i'd quit my job and spend my whole life gambling down at the Casino by my house.  Go in... spend all my money on a game of roullete.   If I lose, collect my government money, drive back and try again, then live off that until i get low enough where I have to repeat it.