Who is best for the American (and maybe world) economy? ? Romney?

[rickymooston]

Who is the lesser evil?

Romney or Obama

I suspect Obama might be but I'm an outsider with a rather biased view on the matter. (Foreigners tend to like democrats more than republicans most of the time. Many of the most popular presidents abroad were disasters at home.)

He may have made a "mistake" with respect to an emphasis on health care (which helps 30,000,000 people) but I'm unsure what he did that any sane person would not do?

The bail outs sucked but without of them, most american banks would have died. This would affect all kinds of people. Likewise,
if the auto  companies died, the auto industry would move to China and Korea. That may not be in the interest of the US because of both job losses and a lack of ability to manufacture vehicles. (Do you want China building your tanks?)

One irony about the auto companies, is the government telling them that, they should clean up their bottom line. This is an irony because moving 100% of the plants to Mexico, might do that? Still, having the unions negotiate ...?

Now, I don't know any details about the stimulus. I think, it worked but I could be wrong.

Where Obama is weak (or where he could not get er done with or without a democratic congress):
- I hold to the belief that the  crisis was caused by systematic deregulation of the finance industry rather than just "Fannae Mae" combined with charity oriented mortage donations. I think greed was the cause and bad regulations allowed greed to work and then hold Americans at ransom. He talked the talk on better regulation but didn't seem to have followed through. I guess the finance industry have a lot of people, including him under their funding thumb
- He is weak on compaign finance reform
- I don't see evidence he was very good at "delegating" and using his people to their full abilities.

I know nothing about Romney, except he is religiously anti-gay and he presents himself as more Hawkish on Iran. I get he is a policitians politician, flip flopping where needed but so perhaps on some issues is Obama.

[Nick]

If Romney is elected it will unleash the far right republicans in congress and their plans to get rid of government assistance and SS, Medicare, food stamps, etc. will be on a fast track.  It will be everybody for themselves.

[inveni0]

I couldn't vote because there's no option that reads, "Whoever decides to legalize and tax marijuana."

[Nick]

I couldn't vote because there's no option that reads, "Whoever decides to legalize and tax marijuana."

Isn't that the platform Rosie O'Donald is running on?

[Timo]

I think that there's an argument to be made that Romney might be good on the economy if we assume that the Republicans are being disingenuous about their agenda.  And I think that there is good reason to think that they are.  Obama made a point when he was trying to push his jobs bill last year that most of what was included in the bill were programs that Republicans have supported in the past.  I think that the point holds true for Obama's agenda more broadly.  The health-care bill, as a lot of us are fond of pointing out, is more or less the Republican alternative to Hillarycare from back in the 90s.  I think the question then is how much Republican opposition to Obama's economic agenda is political and how much reflects a genuine shift in ideology among conservatives.  If it's mostly political then it might be the case that conservatives might reverse themselves and actually do things to help the economy.  If it's the latter, God help us.  And I tend to lean towards the latter being where we're headed.  Boener's inability to control the tea-party caucus and the base's deep suspicions about Romney make me think that the far right would be exercising even greater control over the party than they already do.

So I would say that Obama would probably be better on the economy, assuming that the Republicans are being honest about their agenda, which is to expand short term budget deficits and gut the social safety net over the long term in order to provide more tax cuts...even though taxes are at historic lows.  Romney himself seems to understand that it's a bad idea to cut government spending in a recession.  But I don't think that a Republican Congress would take that message.

I couldn't vote because there's no option that reads, "Whoever decides to legalize and tax marijuana."

You already have that option.  Gary Johnson.  Though I'd say that de facto legalization in places like here in California and the decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of marijuana in places like New York, along with great shifts in public opinion on the issue are an indication that marijuana prohibition is not long for this world.

[HAL]

It's not so much Obama or Romney per se but the pen he wields for your bills. If you're a Democrat you want a president that can sign or veto bills that suit your goals. Same for the other side. That's what you want a president for - to wield the pen for your side.

[Timo]

Yeah, to add on to that HAL, I'd also say that the most compelling reason to vote for either major party candidate, rather than a third party, is the fact that the next president will nominate a few Supreme Court justices.

[HAL]

It's like Grover Norquist said (the guy who gets all the Republicans to sign his no new taxes pledge). They asked him if he supported Romney and he said he didn't care which Republican got elected - all he needed was a guy to sign bills favoring his side.

[rickymooston]

I couldn't vote because there's no option that reads, "Whoever decides to legalize and tax marijuana."

Why do you think this will solve America's deepest priblems?

I csn see why somev ppl feel it should be legalized. I am not sure how taxing it will really help the country that much.

In terms of candidates, the only one supporting your agenda is Ron Paul. If he were elected president, i do not think he would succeed to legalize marijuana. In order to get that done, you would need some libertarians e,ected in congress as well.

[MadBunny]

Obama is basically a Republican from about 30 years ago.
While I don't particularly blame him for the fact that his opposition has gone completely bonkers, I can't help but feel that the whole debate about this that and the other has gone so far to the right that I can't see any Progressive legislation at all any more.  Basically it's the Overton window^Wiki gone insane.

A new idea fills the window of what the public regards as unthinkable, causing the desired idea to shift into the window of what the public views as sensible, without its proponents necessarily having explained any benefits of the desired idea

That I know of, probably the closest person to an actual Progressive is Elizabeth Warren and she's nowhere near the White House.

Romney, from what I can tell is whatever he thinks will make you like him.  It's the reason why his own base avoided him in favor of obvious nutcakes like Santorum; at least you know where you stand with Santorum.

Ultimately what's best for the American economy can't be decided by the President of the US, it will have to come from elsewhere.  My own particular thought is that it'll have to come from a massive shift in tax policy.

[Nick]

Yes, the Reublicans who are focused like a lazer on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS are now going to spend how much time dragging us thru this Justice Dept. thing with Holder.  Our economy is still on life support and the ones who can treat it arent even in the room.  Big money has taken over our government and the rest of us are pawns thinking our vote can make a difference.  Get a tin can, put what money you can in it, and hide it well...you may need it in the very near furture...that is if we make it thru Dec. 21st, 2012.

[MadBunny]

I read an article recently about Martin Lawrence renting out his house for 200k a month. (this is relevant)




In the commentary section I saw a lot of people cry foul, and go on about how 'even if they had that kind of money they wouldn't do it'.
That attitude right there is the nature of the problem this country faces.  You see, if you had enough money you would definitely rent a place like that.  Why?  Because at some point money means nothing to you.  Money is meaningless except as a concept.

Try this experiment:

Imagine that you're willing to flip a coin as a bet with some money.

Would you bet .02 cents?  Probably.

$0.10
$1?
$10?
$100?
$1,000?
$10,000?
$100,000?
$1,000,000?
$10,000,000?
$100,000,000?
$1,000,000,000?  <-- incidentally this is 1/4 what that bank recently flipped a coin on.  They don't seem too upset about it.

and so on.

Where you sit on that is determined by how much money actually means to you.  After a certain point the smaller amounts like '$1 to $10.' don't really make a difference one way or another in your life.
However in Thailand, where the average minimum wage is between 150-200 Baht (around six dollars), that is a big chunk of your daily wages. [1]

So how much money does it take that 200k a month is meaningless to you?
If you take in over 20 million dollars a year, then that amount means nothing.  You won't even notice it on your budget.  These are the kind of people who're influencing our countries policies.  Some refer to them as the 1%, though honestly I think it's more like the 5%.

The kind of people we're talking about here, are mostly millionaires who honestly have little to no idea what it means to make actual choices.  Choices like: get a car or remodel the kitchen.  They can just do both without even a blink.  To them, doing something, taking a vacation, painting the house... those are meaningless questions.

See the note about that bank?  The reason they don't feel upset about it is because who cares?  It doesn't matter to them.  Even if they were fired and could never work again in their lives it won't impact their lifestyle one tiny bit.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

[MadBunny]

Sorry to double post, but I was just reminded of an old british show that my wife was watching.

In it a city boy came to work for a wealthy family in the countryside, fell in love with the daughter and presumably hilarity ensued.  I didn't watch much of it. 

I remember a scene in the show when he was talking to the parents and mentioned coming out on the weekends to visit.  The parents looked at each other and asked "What's a weekend?". 

Makes sense, after all when you don't work your life is merely a series of days, one is much like another, and the only reason a weekend is on the 'end' is if you're looking at a calendar.  When I think of Mitt Romney, this is the sort of feeling that comes to mind.  Sure, I'll bet that when he worked at Bain he worked any day that work needed to get done.  Why?  Because it was 'time to work' not because it was Monday and not Saturday.  He may have a strong work ethic, his father apparently did, but I don't get the feeling that he has any idea what it means to be a normal person who has to make choices.

Questions like: "how long should we run the pool motor" or "what sort of tile do you want in the bathroom", "should we take a vacation this year" are normal questions for most of us, and possibly him but I suspect the answer to those questions are in no way whatsoever influenced by the cost of things.  It's a whole different viewpoint.

For Mr. Romney, "what's a weekend?" is a valid question.

I don't really see President Obama in that same light.
Sure he's pretty rich, as is his wife.  But the wealth they have (I think it's net work of around... 6 million?) isn't even in the same category.  He couldn't afford to rent Martin Lawrence's house for a couple years.  Mitt... wouldn't even notice it.  Because of that fundamental difference in perspective, I don't think he understands what it means to be an average person, or even what the concerns of the majority of the country are.

That's the point I was going for.

[joebbowers]

Romney vehemently opposed the auto industry bailout. He now takes credit for it's success. He is a liar and a fraud.

[Traveler]

Romney vehemently opposed the auto industry bailout. He now takes credit for it's success. He is a liar and a fraud.

As far as I can tell, Romney is a liar and a fraud about a lot of things.

[Nick]

Romney vehemently opposed the auto industry bailout. He now takes credit for it's success. He is a liar and a fraud.

As far as I can tell, Romney is a liar and a fraud about a lot of things.

That no longer matters.  His side has vast amounts of money.  By election time he will be walking on water wearing his magic undies.

[inveni0]

I couldn't vote because there's no option that reads, "Whoever decides to legalize and tax marijuana."

Why do you think this will solve America's deepest priblems?

I csn see why somev ppl feel it should be legalized. I am not sure how taxing it will really help the country that much.

In terms of candidates, the only one supporting your agenda is Ron Paul. If he were elected president, i do not think he would succeed to legalize marijuana. In order to get that done, you would need some libertarians e,ected in congress as well.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...  This was about the economy.  If we want to save the economy, we have to ditch our current model of capitalism.  I'm not saying "abolish capitalism", but I do think that the way we support it has proven itself to be non-self-sustaining.

The USA's deepest problems?  Religion, bar none.  Marijuana would go a long way toward solving that, because it would open people's eyes to the fact that the devils set before them don't really exist at all.  Marijuana is a beautiful plant that has been my only solution for migraines (I can't take prescriptions because, at my growing age, I suffer from severe side effects) and is a fantastic sleep aid, as well.  I'm yet to even consider using it for recreational purposes.  It's a wonder-drug that the world should be able to enjoy.

But that brings us full-circle to our capitalist society.

[One Above All]

As far as I can tell, Romney is a liar and a fraud about a lot of things.

Maybe he's not even a Mormon.

[Hatter23]

The difference between Democrats and Republican when it comes to the economy If the Economy was an engine; the Democrats seem like a bunch of monkeys with hammers hitting on it when it doesn't seem to work, and the Republicans seem to know with precision and efficiency how to melt it down into scrap metal that they will sell overseas, and pocket the proceeds(and proceed to blame that fact that it is gone on the Democrats).

[screwtape]

the Democrats seem like a bunch of monkeys with hammers hitting on it when it doesn't seem to work,

I do not accept that.  The dems have had a bunch of ideas that the repubs have rejected out of hand because their agenda is to destroy dramatically shrink government. 

Democratically leaning, Nobel winning economist, Paul Krugman initially said the stimulus was too small and that laying off government workers would stall the recovery. 

Democrat and also Nobel winning economist, Joe Stiglitz, just released a book about how wealth inequality is killing the economy. 

The Dems will make their mistakes, but fixing the economy is pretty simple - do the opposite of what the repubs have done for the last 30 years.

[MadBunny]

Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-09/wall_street/30061399_1_gordon-gekko-banking-wall-street

Michael Douglas

"I was always shocked when so many people who saw Wall Street said that I (Gekko) was the person who influenced them and inspired them to go into investment banking. I'd say to people, 'Well, I was the villain,' and they would say, 'No, no, no', they didn't see me that way, so it was all very seductive I guess."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/us-wallstreet-bonuses-idUSTRE71M68420110223
Their average year end BONUS fell to a mere 128,000.  Desperate times, I guess.

The problem isn't that these guys are getting rich, it's how they're doing it.  By squeezing profits out of the country and not returning it by the way of spending it.
So when widget company makes wingnuts...



But it's actually cheaper to buy them from the other side of the world, then stores are more likely to purchase them from the other side of the world.
It's the kind of thing that Bain capital excelled it.  Want to make your company more profitable?  Trim out all the extra expense, everwhere.  Buy and sell at the greatest possible margin.  The company makes more profit, the stockowners are happy and everybody wins.

Unless you happen to make wingnuts in the US.



If that's the case then you're fucked.


If you buy things like these wing-nuts made in china, and in the same breath turn around and complain about the economy, YOU are part of the problem.


I'd rather tax the hell out of the rich, and I mean MASSIVELY, PUNITIVELY tax them if that's what it takes to get that money back in the economy than to just give up and have a slow death by austerity.

[MadBunny]

the Democrats seem like a bunch of monkeys with hammers hitting on it when it doesn't seem to work,

I do not accept that.  The dems have had a bunch of ideas that the repubs have rejected out of hand because their agenda is to destroy dramatically shrink government. 

Democratically leaning, Nobel winning economist, Paul Krugman initially said the stimulus was too small and that laying off government workers would stall the recovery. 

Democrat and also Nobel winning economist, Joe Stiglitz, just released a book about how wealth inequality is killing the economy. 

The Dems will make their mistakes, but fixing the economy is pretty simple - do the opposite of what the repubs have done for the last 30 years.

Krugman is right.  From a Keynesian standpoint what we spent was nowhere near the correct amount.

Part of the problem though, as I see it is that the Keynesian model isn't really functional any more.


Keynesian in a nutshell: Save when the economy is good, spend when it is bad.

For decades we've been spending, heck just look at the national debt over time.  We've been spending regardless of how the economy has been doing.
To make the Keynesian model functional we'd need to spend massively.  Huge, gigantic projects the equivalent of the original national highways project.  It doesn't even matter what it is, but it has to be huge. 

Heck it could be a pyramid in every states capital that shines a beam onto the moon of Ronald Reagan's face.  It would be dumb, but if it's big enough it'll work.
I don't think we have that kind of courage politically any more.  This country is broken.

[screwtape]

I'd rather tax the hell out of the rich, and I mean MASSIVELY, PUNITIVELY tax them if that's what it takes to get that money back in the economy than to just give up and have a slow death by austerity.

Raise the inheritence tax - aka the Paris Hilton Tax - to 95% of everything over $2 million.  Make exemptions for family farms.  That would leave a single heir of Mitt with $3.2 million.  Not too shabby for doing absolutely nothing.  Plus, he or she would still have the education, business connections and every other advantage that goes with being a millionaire's kid.

If we wish to live up to the myth that the US is a meritocracy, this is what we should do.

[MadBunny]

Personally I'd set the bar a bit higher honestly, also I'd make it progressive with a soft ceiling cap but no floor. (so if you inherit say a trailer home  worth 10k you'd pay like... a dollar, but still something.)
It isn't really all that hard to hit the 2 million dollar 'net worth' category if there is more than one property involved.  If there is a hard floor on it, then a difference of one dollar could spell ruination.

[Hatter23]

I'd rather tax the hell out of the rich, and I mean MASSIVELY, PUNITIVELY tax them if that's what it takes to get that money back in the economy than to just give up and have a slow death by austerity.

Raise the inheritence tax - aka the Paris Hilton Tax - to 95% of everything over $2 million.  Make exemptions for family farms.  That would leave a single heir of Mitt with $3.2 million.  Not too shabby for doing absolutely nothing.  Plus, he or she would still have the education, business connections and every other advantage that goes with being a millionaire's kid.

If we wish to live up to the myth that the US is a meritocracy, this is what we should do.

Yes, I agree. One of the most amazing scams, and people in the US are so stupid they don't know they were being scammed, was to take the inheritence tax and call it the death tax. To take a tax that was resoundly supported by the founding fathers as a way of trying to prevent an artistocracy developing in the newly formed United states, and sell that the concept of it was somehow unamerican. Yes Republicans are such incredible bastards as to take a thing expressly supported by Geore Washington, Adams, Jefferson as an important way of maintaining the democratic principles they fought for, and to trash it for personal gain.

[Nick]

Good point and the stupidity does not end with the Death Tax.  Americans have been convinced that The Affordable Health Care Act is bad for them, that unions are against them, and coming soon that social security and medicare are socialist programs that must go.  I guess we deserve it for being so out of touch with reality.

[MadBunny]

SS and Medicare are Socialist.
The problem is that people have convinced themselves that Socialism itself is a bad thing.

[rickymooston]

SS and Medicare are Socialist.
The problem is that people have convinced themselves that Socialism itself is a bad thing.

Ronald Reagan apparently was pretty successful in that aim.

[inveni0]

If you have capitalism, you MUST have socialism.  Capitalism relies on the poor to work, so it's absolutely necessary that the poor are able to stay healthy, spend money, and control their numbers.  The biggest problem is that a lot of republicans think that socialism supports drug habits, but that's just not true.  Everyone benefits from socialism.

That's the whole point of socialism.  It just has to be done correctly.