[Still] The President of these here United States of America

[Sandyfromvancouver]

I was going to post a lengthy reply but as I was thinking about the way I wanted to say things, I looked at today's Independent and found this commentary:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 51738.html

People may not amass great amounts of wealth in an egalitarian society, but they are happier, have better levels of education and are healthier.

[Clash Cadillac]

Here is a section of Cramer's 'Mad Money' Recap: The Generals Driving the Rally which I found interesting after the way Jim Cramer criticized Obama only a few weeks ago:

Obama's Rolling

"It's time to give President Obama his due," Cramer told viewers. He explained that he can't remain negative on the president when he's doing the right things.

Cramer returned to his Obama Index, a basket of stocks he created on inauguration day to evaluate Obama's performance in fixing the economy. That basket, which started at 100, dipped to just 50 on March 6, when Cramer was his most vocal on the president's performance.

In the last two weeks however, Cramer's Obama Index has roared back to 96, as Obama has instilled confidence back into the markets.

Cramer said Obama is now doing a few things right, including saving us from Congress, and encouraging the Justice Department to bring changes against the guilty instead of letting Congress pull their usual hearings and shenanigans.

Cramer said Obama is also proposing to regulate hedge funds, a plan he called "right on." He said hedge funds need to play be the same rules as everyone else. Their earnings, he said, need to taxed as regular income and not at lower capital gains rates.

Finally, Cramer said Obama is proposing regulation executive compensation, something he's not in favor of, but admittedly, "we tried it the other way, and it failed."

All of these points are a big deal, said Cramer, and that's why he's changing his stance as the conditions, and the Obama Index, change direction.

[LittleCupcakes]

Make a convincing argument, and perhaps I shall be convinced. I might add: "to fail to be convinced by my many arguments is nothing less than a failure of rationality."

In my mind your response to CPoguesFan illustrates her point very well. It seems you dismissed her comment regarding the DOE without much consideration. Please bear in mind she is my wife and I may be a bit biased in my opinion.

I respect that your posts are consistent in following your core values, however I find it odd that you have been avoiding this thread because as you put it "sometimes have thought about it at work, or while resting, or at other inappropriate times, and so I have found that less-frequent reading and posting has been better for me overall". I don't understand why it stresses you out so much to read other people's opinion's unless you are afraid of reading something that undermines your belief system. I guess this is consistent with your post in which you implied that you "never watch political speeches"

I have been following up on your last lengthy post with internet browsing when I have some down time. I was trying to find an article that illustrated how reduced taxes in Sweden helped their economy. I discovered that the legislation only took effect in the middle of 2008 which would explain why I could not find any articles with statistics to bolster your claim. Can you point me to your source?

I skipped the argument as I has been drinking, and didn't feel like doing the work needed to reply (nor did I realize that I was required to ).

OK, so the argument is, if I may sum up (and reply):
DOE oversees student loan regulation (if by "oversees" you mean "pays billions to banks to make FFEL loans", then I agree)
Student loans are riskier than other types of loans (fine, but doesn't have to be that way)
Loan defaults were bad under no DOE oversight, and better since DOE oversight (I don't know when DOE "took over", but default rates have steeply fallen to about 5-6%, so OK with me)
Therefore, the existence of the DOJ is validated (HAH! )

I'm not saying it's worthless, just not worth it.

Budget Summary

$59,000,000,000 is the budget, roughly, and it has about 4,200 fulltimers. It is relatively small, but that by itself is not enough reason to keep them around.

I'm in favor of non-guaranteed, risk-aware loans by private entities to students. Not all students are good risks (I don't mean creditworthiness; student loans should be based on success potential and prior educational success, much as colleges evaluate applicants) and not all students deserve loans. If you press me, I'll say sure, keep just a fraction of the budget solely for the purpose of overseeing loans, but dump it to another department as then it would be just a money problem, not a policy problem and so not needful of an entire Department.

Much of the budget is direct grants to students, and although it's a nice, soft, squishy notion to hand out checks to kids, it is NOT the federal taxpayer's responsibilty to directly pay a student to go to college. I realize one may disagree, but this is a basic tenet of my core philosophy, and so I cannot be convinced otherwise on this point.

Clash, if you would simply ask about my motivations for avoidance, rather than engage in a little amateur psychology, I'd be pleased to answer (privately, please). Suffice to say, you are way off base, and it is not other opinions of which I am "afraid" (in fact, I love differing opinions, even thought they are always wrong ).

The speech thing is a different kettle of fish. Speeches are a way to emotionally manipulate an audience. Emotional reactions are difficult to predict and deeply affecting. Even I (yes, it's true!) can be strongly affected by emotions, and most of the time that's great (reacting to music, or books, or a potential sex partner, etc) and appropriate.

Choosing a political leader, however, is an entirely different matter. Pluses and minuses must be weighed, perspectives must be varied, history must be consulted, and other considerations must be identified and quantified.

I'm just like everyone else, and emotions overwhelm me too. I can't let my choice of leader be influenced by emotion, so I simply don't want to risk "falling in love" with a politician because of the pretty way he/she may speak. I don't need to remind you of how often a people is mislead by a charismatic leader.

[Clash Cadillac]

I was going to post a lengthy reply but as I was thinking about the way I wanted to say things, I looked at today's Independent and found this commentary:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 51738.html

People may not amass great amounts of wealth in an egalitarian society, but they are happier, have better levels of education and are healthier.

Great article thanks for posting.

Now work on that lengthy reply. I am always interested in hearing more opinions.

[Clash Cadillac]

I'm just like everyone else, and emotions overwhelm me too. I can't let my choice of leader be influenced by emotion, so I simply don't want to risk "falling in love" with a politician because of the pretty way he/she may speak. I don't need to remind you of how often a people is mislead by a charismatic leader.

So your not that cold reptilian creature I was beginning to picture in my mind...

I have not had the chance to shake the hand of a sitting President or Vice President however everyone who relates such an experience always comments about how the politician makes them feel like they have the politicians undivided attention and nothing else in the world is as important as hearing what the individual has to say. There is no doubt they are highly skilled at working emotions.

I still have not had time to find that "smoking gun" that might justify my belief that Obama's plan is the right course for our nation, however I did find this rather interesting article on the result of increasing energy taxes in Denmark. Really quite remarkable.

Flush With Energy

[CPoguesFan]

DOE oversees student loan regulation (if by "oversees" you mean "pays billions to banks to make FFEL loans", then I agree)

DOE pays nothing to banks to make loans - there is no origination fee in student loans (it's illegal). Banks have the incentive of lending through the student loan program through servicing the debt and an increase in their loan portfolio with little risk.

DOE does give grants but it is a fairly self-sustaining program mainly because a lot of students fail to keep the minimum grade requirements to maintain the grant - in that case the grant becomes a loan - so it is not exactly a free ride.

What I believe you may referring to in paying billions of dollars to banks are the government contracts for the loan collection programs. Very big business, but again it isn't tax payer dollars, it is a percentage of the penalty fees and accrued interest and the banks can only collect what they successfully receive from the student loan debtor.

I realize that this is not an argument that would change your mind, but I have a different experience with the government than you. I have a nephew with cerebral palsy that can someday walk through the benefit of paid government workers keeping his muscles in shape. We have public schools that are actually superior to the private schools in our area. We had a relative die while his father was somewhere in Mexico and our state department went out of their way to try and find him.

I suppose you could find fault anywhere in the government system. If you have a bad experience with the government I think it is too simplistic to blame the entire government system. I have had bad experiences in retail stores and do not blame capitalism. I just believe that corporations are not always noble enough to make sure that they have the interest of the community in mind. Anytime you insert the words "we have to do what is good for the shareholders and the bottom line," you move farther away from taking care of a community's needs. Government workers (and I'll admit that there are some bad apples, just as there are some in the private sector) have their agency's mission foremost in their mind and can be held accountable to that mission, something that is missing in the private sector.

[LittleCupcakes]

So when you (or the source you look to for economic enlightenment) come up with a plan like this, do you/they consider how many people would lose their jobs? I am curious just how many that would be and what would be the plan for them?

Plenty of people would lose their jobs. That's the (sadly) only way it works in the real world. A great employee gets canned when the private business he/she works for goes under, and that's a shitty fact of life. My "plan" would be to subject them to limited "unemployment benefits", just like everyone else in the real world. And we don't have to do it all at once, either.

When you say that growth and success are the driving factors in the economy I agree if you are speaking speaking of the middle class. Our middle class is shrinking. We need to push wealth from the upper class to the lower classes. Get the lobbyists out of the tax code and make the tax code very clear so that the "rich" are rewarded tax wise for investing in ways that benefit the lower classes. If they don't want to spend the money (trickle down) then tax the shit out of them and make them go to jail if they break the law (gaming the system or shenanigans). There are no guarantees that reducing taxes leads to spending where it is needed. I would rather see the tax rates go even higher with tax incentives for those who do "trickle" their wealth down.

Stock profits and real estate profits should be taxed based on one's overall economic standing, the little guy who gets lucky on a stock investment or has the ability to buy a house, spends weekends fixing it up and "flips" it for a profit should be able to keep the majority of the profit.

Just like the progressive income tax, I have no problem with a progressive cap gains tax. Otherwise, I disagree with your philosophical approach. It's not the government's business to choose who will "win" and who will "lose". I am concerned about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

As I stated previously, I have no background in economics but when I think of things in simple terms I like to assume that all the assets (wealth) on this planet are a fixed quantity. So if you let me make this assumption, then the only way for the rich to get richer is to take wealth away from someone else. Since we all know it is easy to make a million dollars if you already have a million to start with, then one can only assume that all the money (wealth) ends up at the top unless a system is put in place to redistribute the wealth.

So I take your statement "More people with more money equals more tax revenues" and say Enough people have more money, therefore we already have the source for tax revenues.

In a free market, wealth is ever-growing; as some have put it: "Over time, the pie will always get bigger". It's not anybody's business to determine what is "enough" money anyway.

This is an interesting question which I am sure a computer model could prove to go either way depending on the assumptions that are made.

Here is my quick analysis:

Since the government spends all of the money it receives through taxes (and then some). One could argue that both 0% and 90% would lead to the same economic activity. The only problem with this analogy is that there are no guarantees that the money enters the economy if it is not taxed and spent by the government. 90% may be the safer bet for more economic activity.

I do mean in the short-term, of course. Rather than approach it with a computer model, just think of what you (and others) would do. I'm guessing that at 0%, you'll spend a hell of a lot more than at 90%. I sure would.

You know, I might have been a little high with 90%. At that level, we'd basically have a communist system, so we'd be screwed eight ways to Sunday and there'd be no sense in discussing economic effects.

I have not researched Ireland, Lithuania or Great Britain yet and as I said in my last post am having trouble finding any data on Sweden. Can you save me some time and post a link for your source?

As of that writing, I had seen through other sources stories indicating an improved retail climate, but I have not seen any actual stats, no.

Let's turn it around, Clash. Where have higher taxes helped an economy recover? And what would be your plan for stimulation, and where has that worked before? And where has a Euro-style economy provided income mobility, low unemployment, and incentives for work? Just see France for a dispositive case.

Again, I have not done the research and can only base my opinion on living through Reaganomics and the articles I have read on Keynesian theory. I will see what I can come up with if time permits.

I have read many articles dealing with economics as a direct result of reading yours and other posts on this thread. Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the input.

Thanks again. Again, bye for a while (please PM if you really want to know why).

[LittleCupcakes]

DOE oversees student loan regulation (if by "oversees" you mean "pays billions to banks to make FFEL loans", then I agree)

DOE pays nothing to banks to make loans - there is no origination fee in student loans (it's illegal). Banks have the incentive of lending through the student loan program through servicing the debt and an increase in their loan portfolio with little risk.

DOE does give grants but it is a fairly self-sustaining program mainly because a lot of students fail to keep the minimum grade requirements to maintain the grant - in that case the grant becomes the loan - so it is not exactly a free ride.

What I believe you may referring to in paying billions of dollars to banks is the government contracts for the loan collection programs. Very big business, but again it isn't tax payer dollars, it is a percentage of the penalty fees and accrued interest and the banks can only collect what they successfully receive from the student loan debtor.

I realize that this is not a argument that would change your mind, but I have a different experience with the government than you. I have a nephew with cerebral palsy that can someday walk through the benefit of paid government workers keeping his muscles in shape. We have public schools that are actually superior to the private schools in our area. We had relative die while his father was somewhere in Mexico and our state department went out of their way to try and find him.

I suppose you could find fault anywhere in the government system. If you have a bad experience with the government I think it is too simplistic to blame the entire government system. I have had bad experiences in retail stores and do not blame capitalism. I just believe that corporations are not always noble enough to make sure that they have the interest of the community in mind. Anytime you insert the words "we have to do what is good for the shareholders and the bottom line," you move farther away from taking care of a community's needs. Government workers (and I'll admit that there are some bad apples, just as there are some in the private sector) have their agency's mission foremost in their mind and can be held accountable to that mission, something that is missing in the private sector.

The DOE pays subsidies to banks to help guarantee loans. NY Times, sixth paragraph.

The government helping CP patients (or others truly unable to help themselves)? Yay! Fine with me.
You have better public than private schools? Good! But overall, especially in heavily liberal states, public education is abominable.

[CPoguesFan]

I give that one to you - the subsides were not in existence when I was contracted by the DOE. There were many changes coming through when I left in response to the high amount of fraud. Can't imagine what lobbyist greased the politician's hand to get that in place.

On that note - what does a Libertarian think about lobbyists?

[Benno]

i always find it amazing how quickly people find themselves out of sorts in the political arena
as if they have to protect themselves or something
you should be able to say things you want to as long as you're making good decisions.

real vs surreal socialism
I'd say Denmark and Sweden have closer ties to Canada in terms of real socialism.
There are many examples of how this is true. And also more examples of how these institutions are more rigorous in keeping things balanced.
The US falls into the realm of surreal socialism.
Bailing out all sorts of severely contorted and twisted firms and trusts and then increasing regulation of that money will make the problem worse in two ways:
1 it uses toxic money to buy toxic companies... funded by the taxpayer! (duh)
2 it does not get to the heart of the issues which initially caused the crisis, thus increasing likeliness of
Moves are being made to create further consolidation of permanent debt institutions, which will make debt inheritable by mere reason of being born in a certain country. AND NOW THEYRE GOING GLOBAL. This is a tax on the people of america historically, and now the cash barons, the shameless looters of the treasury, are chomping at the bit with even more than usual gusto: orchestrating a crisis, reaping more control and ensuring further "business cycles".
what is real?

[Sandyfromvancouver]

real vs surreal socialism
I'd say Denmark and Sweden have closer ties to Canada in terms of real socialism.
There are many examples of how this is true. And also more examples of how these institutions are more rigorous in keeping things balanced.
The US falls into the realm of surreal socialism.
Bailing out all sorts of severely contorted and twisted firms and trusts and then increasing regulation of that money will make the problem worse in two ways:
1 it uses toxic money to buy toxic companies... funded by the taxpayer! (duh)

Uh, Benno, the Canadian government subsidizes the oil companies big time, with our money. And it's going to bail out Chrysler and GM without requiring them to retool and make energy efficient cars.

I think Denmark and Sweden run circles around Canada, for many reasons. Less foreign ownership. Better social safety nets. Present Canadian governments, no matter what political stripe or level, are undermining what people take pride in: for instance, the federal government wants to lessen regulations on banking, and the province of Ontario wants to hand out those automotive subsidies no matter what.

[Benno]

Don't get me wrong Sandy the recent stuff pulled by Harper, and the betrayal of Chretien by Martin scare me...
But i think we've got a strong enough history sense to not make these recent blunders standard policy, as has been the case in the states since 1913.

[Sandyfromvancouver]

Don't get me wrong Sandy the recent stuff pulled by Harper, and the betrayal of Chretien by Martin scare me...
But i think we've got a strong enough history sense to not make these recent blunders standard policy, as has been the case in the states since 1913.

Well, my English friends say that Thatcher did permanent damage in England, and I fear the same here. I agree that many Canadians set a very high value on the common good, so we'll see what happens. Meanwhile we have a Science & Technology Minister who thinks whether or not he believes in evolution has nothing to do with his job.

[firehazard]

Well, my English friends say that Thatcher did permanent damage in England...

She is ultimately responsible for the current mess that we are in.

[ExFishManAustralis]

Well, my English friends say that Thatcher did permanent damage in England...

She is ultimately responsible for the current mess that we are in.

From stealing milk from school-children's mouths to destroying all major British industry to waging Pinochet-style undeclared war in her private little Six-County Para training camp to murdering hunger strikers to Fucking the Malvinas to sucking Reagan's balls, that purse-lipped scum-sucking whore will burn in a variety of hells for many a millenium. She and her ilk are responsible for all sorts of messes we all find ourselves globally enmired in.

Tá gráin agam ar Thatcher fós - I still hate Thatcher.

No, the lady's NOT for turning, she SHOULD be for burning. Publicly. Alive or dead I will piss in that woman's face.
Death will not render her nobler or suddenly soft and cuddly, it will cast a harsh revelatory light that will show her to be simply Stalin with tits.