Give Obama 40 More Years in Office!

For all of those worried about tax increases, slow economic growth and rapidly expanding deficits, I have one word - relax. Consider the following comments made by the President yesterday.

Obama Says Robust Growth Will Prevent Tax Increases

June 16 (Bloomberg) — “One of the biggest variables in this whole thing is economic growth,” the president said in an interview with Bloomberg News at the White House. “If we are growing at a robust rate, then we can pay for the government that we need without having to raise taxes.”

Obama has repeatedly said he would keep his campaign pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans while rolling back tax breaks for households making more than $250,000 a year.

The U.S. economy shrank at a 5.7 percent annual pace in the first quarter… The median forecast for growth next year is 1.8 percent, according to the survey.

Obama warned that if economic growth remains “anemic” and Congress fails to adopt his plans to hold down the cost of health care, work on alternative energy sources and improve the U.S. education system, “then we’re going to continue to have problems.”

He also repeated his promise to cut the budget deficit, forecast to hit $1.8 trillion this year, in half by the end of his first term.

“If my proposals are adopted, then not only are we cutting the deficit in half compared to where it would be if we didn’t do anything, but we’re also going to be able to raise revenue on people making over $250,000 a year in a modest way,” he said. “That helps close the deficit.”

Fiscal discipline that leads to lower budget deficits is important, Obama said, to ensure investors around the world keep buying U.S. government debt.

From warning of a “financial catastrophe” some short months ago, we are now being told that:

1. Robust economic growth will cover government spending increases
2. 5% of working Americans will cover the tab for the other 95%
3. New spending on health care, education and the environment will spur economic growth
4. Deficits will be cut in half to only $1 trillion a year
5. Fiscal discipline will cause investors to lust after U.S. debt securities

News like this is almost enough to make one believe that the recent 40% gain in stock prices is just the beginning of new wealth creation for investors.

Before rushing into a 100% long position with your portfolio, consider some of the potential headwinds that the President’s magic scenario will face.

Past decades in the U.S. have been distinguished by slow economic growth (despite huge credit stimulus), stagnate or declining real incomes and a massive increase in the debt burden on every sector of the economy. In addition, Americans have seen their major asset categories - stocks and real estate - vaporized by multi trillion dollar losses.

Median Household Incomes Fell in 94% of the States- 1999-2005

1999-2006 Income Declines

Courtesy: mwhodges.home

Household Debt Ratio

Debt to National Income

Debt to National Income Ratio

Workers in Manufacturing

Personal savings rate

Decline In Purchasing Power US $

Conclusion:

The national economic trends of past decades are:

• Lower incomes
• Staggering increases in debt
• Dramatic decreases in savings
• The destruction of our manufacturing base
• A 90% decline in the purchasing value of our currency

If the President can reverse these trends, I say change the Constitution and give him 40 more years in office!

Comments

[Dave Wrixon:]

“If my proposals are adopted, then not only are we cutting the deficit in half compared to where it would be if we didn’t do anything......"

This is carefully worded double speak. What he is actually saying is that the deficit is going to skyrocket, but we can come up with some hypothetical projections that show an alternative strategy might have been even worse. Yes, that is what he has been saying, but how many American actually received that message?

Jun 17 07:42 AM

[Dave Wrixon:]

"Conclusion:

The national economic trends of past decades are:

Lower incomes
Staggering increases in debt
Dramatic decreases in savings
The destruction of our manufacturing base
A 90% decline in the purchasing value of our currency
If the President can reverse these trends, I say change the Constitution and give him 40 more years in office!"

It is a bit like an engine driver knowing that the train is reaching the end of the line at high speed and there not being time to brake, so throttling up the accelerator in the hope he can smash through the buffers. The question of what happen to the train and its passengers on the other side appears to have been neglected.

Jun 17 07:50 AM

[Tom Armistead:]

My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises: he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental problems progress will be made.

That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction. Also, today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical. Derugulatin created chaos in the financial system.

Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50 years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things are possible.

Jun 17 07:54 AM

[djc:]

..and if Americans select liars then they wont know til its too late.

Theyre all liars.

Jun 17 08:08 AM

[atlasman:]

“If we are growing at a robust rate, then we can pay for the government that we need without having to raise taxes.”

No truer words have ever been spoken. Now lets look at what Obama has either done or promised to do:

1. Increased taxes on the productive
2. Cap and Tax energy policy
3. Extremely wasteful (I would call reckless) spending
4. Ending secret union ballets
5. Complete alignment with tort lawyers.

All of these things hurt growth. I am not sure the nation can last 8 years with Obama (and his Congress), let alone 40. He can blame the past, but he owns the cure which in my opinion is pure liberalism which will do more damage than good.

Jun 17 08:14 AM

[GregZw:]

Anyone with good tele prompter skills could have delivered those speeches. Anyone with common sense or experience with politicians can see right through the rhetoric.


On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg
> yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the
> issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises:
> he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental
> problems progress will be made.
>
> That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase
> in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction.
> Also, today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical.
> Derugulatin created chaos in the financial system.
>
> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 08:42 AM

[John Bowman:]

Before Obama was elected, I had originally forecast that America would be a third world country by 2030. It will occur much much sooner now that he is in office.

Jun 17 08:59 AM

[rscottb:]

Another member of the cult of Obama. You probably believe he can walk across the Potomac without getting his socks wet. Obviously, some are more easily impressed with clever rhetoric than others.


On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg
> yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the
> issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises:
> he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental
> problems progress will be made.
>
> That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase
> in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction. Also,
> today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical. Derugulatin
> created chaos in the financial system.
>
> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 08:59 AM

[jpiretti:]

id anyone who commented notice when the negative debt/nat. income metrics begin there parabolic rise? 1981?...Given these charts, you could easily publish a peer reviewed paper dispelling the myth of the Laffer curve and supply side economics. Were we not also told that in 2005 our economy was robust? When the median (the most middle of the middle class) family incomes are dropping, can we still say the economy was successful in 2005? I have said this before...I am all for tax cuts, but they must be targeted towards investment (R&D block grants) vs. distribution (cap gains & dividends)

Jun 17 09:17 AM

[cabaretewil...:]

Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50 years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things are possible. (Tom)

Really now, Tom. The charts show that the DEBT is the problem and Obama is adding to it more than any president in 200 years. Great things are impossible when Pres. Obama ignores the cause ands the problem. It would take 5-10 years of restriant but we have Obama's excess and tax the middle class!

Jun 17 09:22 AM

[Tom Armistead:]

You're missing the point. Geo W Bush was driving the bus when it went off the cliff. 8 years of total hypocrisy, catering to the far out right wing of the GOP while spending like a drunken sailor and refusing to let regulators stop the lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating and fraud that characterized the financial system - all this in the name of a stupid ideology of "free markets" by which he meant wretched excess of speculation and profiteering.

Unfortunately there is a price to be paid just to get the vehicle back on the road. Bear in mind that we had budget surpluses thanks to Clinton when Bush took over. If you favor hypocrisy and stupidity over intelligence and honesty then I can't help you.


On Jun 17 09:22 AM cabaretewilliam wrote:

> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible. (Tom)
>
> Really now, Tom. The charts show that the DEBT is the problem and
> Obama is adding to it more than any president in 200 years. Great
> things are impossible when Pres. Obama ignores the cause ands the
> problem. It would take 5-10 years of restriant but we have Obama's
> excess and tax the middle class!

Jun 17 10:01 AM

[atlasman:]

all this in the name of a stupid ideology of "free markets"

Karl Marx lives!

-AM


On Jun 17 10:01 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> You're missing the point. Geo W Bush was driving the bus when it
> went off the cliff. 8 years of total hypocrisy, catering to the
> far out right wing of the GOP while spending like a drunken sailor
> and refusing to let regulators stop the lying, cheating, stealing,
> manipulating and fraud that characterized the financial system -
> all this in the name of a stupid ideology of "free markets" by which
> he meant wretched excess of speculation and profiteering.
>
> Unfortunately there is a price to be paid just to get the vehicle
> back on the road. Bear in mind that we had budget surpluses thanks
> to Clinton when Bush took over. If you favor hypocrisy and stupidity
> over intelligence and honesty then I can't help you.

Jun 17 10:11 AM

[wg:]

You good people should not try to argue with Tom. Tom is smart. Tom knows what's good for, which is to listen and heed President Obama. President Obama knows what is best for this nation. President Obama understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. President Obama doens't :WANT to run Chrysler and GM--these were thrust upon him. He doesn't WANT to tell Americans they have to drive teeny-weeny little cars--but he knows what it best for them.President Obama doesn't WANT to run the banks, and tell the banks who they should lend money to, but he knows what is good for "The People." President Obama doesnt WANT to appoint members of ACORN to the Federal Home Loan Bank Boards--they just happened to make themselves available at the right time. President Obama doesn't WANT to mire his fellow citizens in unpayable debt--but it is the RIGHT THING for the country. Can't you anti-Obama people understand all this?

Jun 17 10:15 AM

[Tom Armistead:]

They were interviews, not speeches, done in the presence of cameras, not teleprompters. You really shouldn't discuss material you didn't watch or attempt to understand.


On Jun 17 08:42 AM GregZw wrote:

> Anyone with good tele prompter skills could have delivered those
> speeches. Anyone with common sense or experience with politicians
> can see right through the rhetoric.

Jun 17 10:17 AM

[Tom Armistead:]

Another mindlessly negaitve commentator. If you can't spend some time and thought to come up with any suggestions for what should be done to get us past the crisis and back on the road to recovery then you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion.


On Jun 17 08:59 AM rscottb wrote:

> Another member of the cult of Obama. You probably believe he can
> walk across the Potomac without getting his socks wet. Obviously,
> some are more easily impressed with clever rhetoric than others.
>

Jun 17 10:22 AM

[AndrewBaker:]

Obama won't get to do eight years: his first four will make sure of that.

Jun 17 10:33 AM

[Baboon:]

Forked-tongued snake.

Jun 17 10:34 AM

[Tom Armistead:]

The way I remember it, all Bush's supporters where driving Hummers when the price of oil hit 147 per barrel. Then GM and Chrysler went belly up.

Geo didn't WANT the price of oil to go to 147, he didn't WANT the SUV to become obsolete, he figured if he did what was good for big oil and big business and big contributors everything would be fine but he was sadly misinformed. Geo didn't WANT the economy to crash, he thought that if you completely emasculated all regulation and let his buddies do whatever they wanted everything would be fine but it didn't turn out that way.

Before Geo crept off the scene he carefully propped up GM and Chrysler so a responsible adult could deal with the problems he left behind.


On Jun 17 10:15 AM wg wrote:

> You good people should not try to argue with Tom. Tom is smart. Tom
> knows what's good for, which is to listen and heed President Obama.
> President Obama knows what is best for this nation. President Obama
> understands and respects the U.S. Constitution. President Obama doens't
> :WANT to run Chrysler and GM--these were thrust upon him. He doesn't
> WANT to tell Americans they have to drive teeny-weeny little cars--but
> he knows what it best for them.President Obama doesn't WANT to run
> the banks, and tell the banks who they should lend money to, but
> he knows what is good for "The People." President Obama doesnt WANT
> to appoint members of ACORN to the Federal Home Loan Bank Boards--they
> just happened to make themselves available at the right time. President
> Obama doesn't WANT to mire his fellow citizens in unpayable debt--but
> it is the RIGHT THING for the country. Can't you anti-Obama people
> understand all this?

Jun 17 10:36 AM

[Baboon:]

He is as farsighted leader as his friend Hugo Chavez.

>If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 10:40 AM

[Tom E.:]

The old model is flawed. I agree with Tom that we need to re-think our priorities. The current economic model is on track to drive 97% of Americans down to a third world standard of living.

Jun 17 10:58 AM

[jpiretti:]

I am quite shocked at the level of mis-information and stupidity on these sites. If people are really interested in fact checking themselves before they post bogus drivel, try these resources.
www.factcheck.org/
www.politifact.com/tru.../
My guess is that most folks will cling to there pre-desposed stupidity rather than fact check their warm,fuzzy but dead wrong assertions.

Jun 17 11:01 AM

[jpiretti:]

Dear WG,
I have a feeling that you believe ACORN received 5.2 billion dollars in the stimulus package (a lie often repeated and never corrected by FOX News)...here are the facts.
www.factcheck.org/askf...
Please...put your pitchfork and tea bags down and read a bit.

Jun 17 11:30 AM

[jpiretti:]

Not unless he losses to a third party candidate because the Republicans have nothing to offer in terms of a vibrant public policy debate. Can you imagine that the intellectual soul of the consevative movement has gone from William F. Buckley to Rush Limbaugh (college dropout, draft dodger, drug addict). If you are a Republican and want to compete, you better clean house from within....and I would be happy to see it.


On Jun 17 10:33 AM AndrewBaker wrote:

> Obama won't get to do eight years: his first four will make sure
> of that.

Jun 17 11:48 AM

[agneaux:]

Obama is of the parasitic class, steeped in the logic of The Big Lie. If you lie to us long enough, it almost starts to make sense. Except that none of what he says makes any sense at all. I agree with the comment that he will not be re-elected after his first four years, and that he will make a bad economic problem much worse by his socialist actions. This has been and always will be a Capitalist country with free men and free markets. It has been said that Capitalism is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others... (which are much worse: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, ...). Remove the parasites, and the patient will recover.

Jun 17 11:57 AM

[pansyed:]

The biggest thing about ACORN is that it has no transparency and one wonders if it ever will. With all the controversy around the organization one would think they would want an investigation to clear the air.

If you read factcheck reasonably carefully a definite bias can be observed. Wait a while and we may be able to decern the truth.


On Jun 17 11:30 AM jpiretti wrote:

> Dear WG,
> I have a feeling that you believe ACORN received 5.2 billion dollars
> in the stimulus package (a lie often repeated and never corrected
> by FOX News)...here are the facts.
> www.factcheck.org/askf...
>
> Please...put your pitchfork and tea bags down and read a bit.

Jun 17 12:04 PM

[jpiretti:]

Do you have any real public policy suggestions?...or would you like to go back to another 8 years of K street manipulated economic policies? (Medicare pt. D ripoff)


On Jun 17 11:57 AM agneaux wrote:

> Obama is of the parasitic class, steeped in the logic of The Big
> Lie. If you lie to us long enough, it almost starts to make sense.
> Except that none of what he says makes any sense at all. I agree
> with the comment that he will not be re-elected after his first four
> years, and that he will make a bad economic problem much worse by
> his socialist actions. This has been and always will be a Capitalist
> country with free men and free markets. It has been said that Capitalism
> is the worst possible economic system, except for all the others...
> (which are much worse: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, ...). Remove
> the parasites, and the patient will recover.

Jun 17 12:08 PM

[jpiretti:]

You mean the bias from the Annenberg Center...Walter Annenberg, who was Ronald Reagan's best friend and his Embassador to the UK...or how about is widow, who gave the maximum amount to the McCain campaign...damn the facts...if you are wrong, blame media bias...goodbye Buckley, welcome Rush.


On Jun 17 12:04 PM pansyed wrote:

> The biggest thing about ACORN is that it has no transparency and
> one wonders if it ever will. With all the controversy around the
> organization one would think they would want an investigation to
> clear the air.
>
> If you read factcheck reasonably carefully a definite bias can be
> observed. Wait a while and we may be able to decern the truth.<br/>

Jun 17 12:14 PM

[agneaux:]

Yes, vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

>>Do you have any real public policy suggestions?...or would you like to go back to another 8 years of K street manipulated economic policies? (Medicare pt. D ripoff)<<

Jun 17 12:24 PM

[jpiretti:]

At least slightly better than this:

From Roll Call ...

House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.



On Jun 17 12:24 PM agneaux wrote:

> Yes, vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

Jun 17 12:57 PM

[agneaux:]

Even though Dr. Ron Paul, M.D. is a Republican, he does not vote in lockstep with the GOP and would diapprove of any "health care reform" from either party, because health care is a privately-owned business, not a Constitutionally-guara... right. He is really a Libertarian, and has run for president as a Libertarian in the past. He ran for president as a Republican in the last election. There's no point in talking about 'public policy suggestions' now, since Obama is going to ram them down our throats for the next four years, whether we like them or not.

Jun 17 01:07 PM

[Glen L.:]

My, my, what a bunch of partisan nonsense from both sides of the establishment duopoly in this comment stream! The fact is (here's a real factcheck for you, Mr. Lefty) that almost every president in American history has presided over the expansion of parasitic government, at the expense of free markets and freedom in general. This applies to St. Reagan of the Right as well as Ayotollah Obama of the Left, to Pretty Boy Clinton as well as Babyface Bush. Their actions belied their effusive rhetoric about capitalism, free markets, and liberty, as they either supported or failed to veto one government power grab after another. Only the favored special interests changed from one Administration to the next, and then only slightly.

So I just watched Obama's speech - aka dictatorial pronouncements - about how "we" are going to institute sweeping regulatory reform in the financial markets that will ensure that free market capitalism will once again function properly... reforms that will prevent firms that are too big to fail from engaging in activities that will put them at risk of failing in the first place. As he put it, "the guiding hand of government" will ensure that the "invisible hand of the marketplace" does not go astray. In other words, the markets will neither be allowed to take risks that the government deems foolish, nor will they be allowed to punish the risk-takers who make those foolish mistakes! THIS is public-private partnership, aka fascism, dressed up as responsible government policy.

America needs to shed some excess weight, also known as government, before any recovery will take place. I don't agree that voters will understand this in 2012; in fact Obama's reelection is likely to be by a landslide, just as FDR's was in 1936. But it won't make any difference if they vote the GOP back into majority status. The best we can hope for from the ballot box is gridlock, or a Ron Paul style president who will veto everything and use the bully pulpit to get Americans thinking straight about the inherent adversarial role government has to liberty and prosperity.

Jun 17 01:38 PM

[agneaux:]

I'm in complete agreement with Glen L. except possibly the chances for O'Crama's re-election...

Jun 17 01:45 PM

[jpiretti:]

It's not a privately owned business when in 2007 (depending on the report you read) 40-62% of all individual bankruptcies listed medical indebtedness as their #1 liability...75% of those folks had insurance. This from an industry that maximizes it's "free market" profits by denying services...we all pay for that. WE (tax payers) also pay for the 47 million who don't have insurance and have to use the emergency room as their primary physician. We demand car operators have insurance to protect all operators from collective liability. We demand home owners have insurance so banks are not exposed to losses that would be written off and absorbed by tax payers...I am sorry, but the Libertarian approach of "every man for himself" will not address the fact that we spend 16% of GDP on health care while 47 million have no insurance and another 13 million are under insured. Does it not strike you as odd that the most Socialized of the Socialized medicine examples (France) only spends 11% of their GDP on health care and everyone is covered with no deductibles?....before you scream I am a Socialist, I am not proposing this. It would not also address the fact that we (Alabama & Ky.) just lost 2 bids to Canada over the last 18 months on new Toyota plants(HC costs were cited). This is not entirely a question of fairness, but global competitiveness.


On Jun 17 01:07 PM agneaux wrote:

> Even though Dr. Ron Paul, M.D. is a Republican, he does not vote
> in lockstep with the GOP and would diapprove of any "health care
> reform" from either party, because health care is a privately-owned
> business, not a Constitutionally-guara... right. He is really a Libertarian,
> and has run for president as a Libertarian in the past. He ran for
> president as a Republican in the last election. There's no point
> in talking about 'public policy suggestions' now, since Obama is
> going to ram them down our throats for the next four years, whether
> we like them or not.

Jun 17 02:00 PM

[Spartacuss:]

The story of the blind men defining what an elephant is, only this time it is not men it is a man and his name is Obama.

Obama has no background in the matters at hand and no background in statesmanship. He is a mouthpiece with teleprompter, the selected mouthpiece by the establishment.

The thing that is so amazing is the party faithful...they are willing to overlook just about anything in their zeal for their party. This latest blast by Obama is still more of the same campaign rhetoric that we all are sick and tired of listening to. The blatant zany far left solutions to serious problems for America are shocking and troubling but the faithful are blissful in thier unshakable beleif that this two-bit phony can walk on water.

Jun 17 02:02 PM

[jpiretti:]

I am happy you have solved all of our problems...what do we do now?


On Jun 17 02:02 PM Spartacuss wrote:

> The story of the blind men defining what an elephant is, only this
> time it is not men it is a man and his name is Obama.
>
> Obama has no background in the matters at hand and no background
> in statesmanship. He is a mouthpiece with teleprompter, the selected
> mouthpiece by the establishment.
>
> The thing that is so amazing is the party faithful...they are willing
> to overlook just about anything in their zeal for their party. This
> latest blast by Obama is still more of the same campaign rhetoric
> that we all are sick and tired of listening to. The blatant zany
> far left solutions to serious problems for America are shocking and
> troubling but the faithful are blissful in thier unshakable beleif
> that this two-bit phony can walk on water.

Jun 17 02:12 PM

[MudEngineer:]

If spending money at a rate that is 3 times faster than the overspending of the past 8 years and taking over American businesses and giving them to the Unions is being an effective and farsighted leader, then we are in good shape! Thank God for that, huh? Just just drinking that Kool-Aid and you won't even notice when society as we knew it comes to an end! Sheeple elected him and Sheeple just keep on defending him even as he marches us all to the destruction of our Country. It just amazes me how blinded and uninformed people can actually become.


On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg
> yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the
> issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises:
> he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental
> problems progress will be made.
>
> That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase
> in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction.
> Also, today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical.
> Derugulatin created chaos in the financial system.
>
> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 02:17 PM

[jpiretti:]

How do we provide HC coverage to the 47 million who don't have it? Can we kick this can down the road any longer without crippling our economy? Can we depend entirely on the private insurance industry to provide leadership on this when they maximize profits by denying coverage while they pay their CEO's 124 million dollars in one year?
United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil

Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil

Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil

Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil




On Jun 17 02:17 PM MudEngineer wrote:

> If spending money at a rate that is 3 times faster than the overspending
> of the past 8 years and taking over American businesses and giving
> them to the Unions is being an effective and farsighted leader, then
> we are in good shape! Thank God for that, huh? Just just drinking
> that Kool-Aid and you won't even notice when society as we knew it
> comes to an end! Sheeple elected him and Sheeple just keep on defending
> him even as he marches us all to the destruction of our Country.
> It just amazes me how blinded and uninformed people can actually
> become.

Jun 17 02:38 PM

[Glen L.:]

jpiretti: When you study and understand the libertarian approach to anything, you may be qualified to pronounce judgments on libertarianism, not before.

I'm a libertarian and a medical biller by trade. I assure you that I understand both libertarianism and the medical insurance problems in this country. First and foremost, you need to understand that what is called medical insurance in the US (whether HMO, PPO, Medicare of Medicaid) is anything but true insurance. It's a bogus third party payer system that tries to cover over 90% of ALL medical costs, which is equivalent to your car insurance paying for 90% of your expenses to drive your car, or your homeowners paying for 90% of your routine home maintenance. Under these conditions, the incentive for all medical policyholders is to overuse and abuse the system (how many people do you know that go to the doctor for every damn sniffle?), and for doctors to order every test under the sun (fear of lawsuit has a big hand in this too). Then basic economic law sets in: virtually unlimited demand vs. limited supply guarantees perpetual price rises, for both treatment and "insurance".

We didn't always have this crazy system. When I was a kid my parents had real health insurance called Major Medical to cover true emergencies and hospital stays, and they paid 100% of the premiums out of their own pockets. Doctors competed for patients (they made honest-to-God housecalls) and routine care was easily affordable for the typical family! And NO, poor people did not go untreated, in fact they got better care through charity then they do through Medicaid today. We easily had the best and most affordably healthcare system in the world.

So what happened? Well, employer-provided third party payer "insurance", a response to wartime wage freezes imposed by government in the 1940's, was already skewing the market. Then Medicare was enacted in 1965, followed by Medicaid, and doctors fees for the elderly and poor were dictated by the government. This greatly exacerbated the demand-price hike spiral started by the employer-based systems, while simultaneously shifting much of the cost burden to the young - paradoxically making obtaining true health insurance less affordable to them.

Far from being "every man to himself", libertarians believe in peaceful free market exchange, in combination with the division of labor for maximum productivity, as the ideal. All governments are antithetical to free markets, even when they pretend to be protecting them. We had something close to free market medicine once in America, and we could do no better than to understand that and demand that government remove its greedy hands from that sector of the marketplace.

Jun 17 02:44 PM

[Tom Armistead:]

As far as giving American businesses to the unions, please bear in mind management at the Big Three started making promises to their employees as far as pensions and health care that they couldn't keep 30 years ago, and they kept on doing it until the unions owned them.

All Obama did was accept the facts - inept management made promises they couldn't keep and so the employees became creditors and then owners.


On Jun 17 02:17 PM MudEngineer wrote:

> If spending money at a rate that is 3 times faster than the overspending
> of the past 8 years and taking over American businesses and giving
> them to the Unions is being an effective and farsighted leader, then
> we are in good shape! Thank God for that, huh? Just just drinking
> that Kool-Aid and you won't even notice when society as we knew it
> comes to an end! Sheeple elected him and Sheeple just keep on defending
> him even as he marches us all to the destruction of our Country.
> It just amazes me how blinded and uninformed people can actually
> become.

Jun 17 02:55 PM

[tedster98:]

Obama is a communist. End of statement.

Jun 17 03:00 PM

[jpiretti:]

Your comments are very thoughtful and I do understand the dilemma. My problem is this: If an entrepreneur maximizes his/her profits by providing a product or service that people either want or need, how can a business model which maximizes it's profit margin by denying said product or service be expected to lead us to a more efficient system of delivery? How does a Libertarian solution resolve this apparent glitch when the private sector is consuming so much capital in compensation and not services?


On Jun 17 02:44 PM Glen L. wrote:

> jpiretti: When you study and understand the libertarian approach
> to anything, you may be qualified to pronounce judgments on libertarianism,
> not before.
>
> I'm a libertarian and a medical biller by trade. I assure you that
> I understand both libertarianism and the medical insurance problems
> in this country. First and foremost, you need to understand that
> what is called medical insurance in the US (whether HMO, PPO, Medicare
> of Medicaid) is anything but true insurance. It's a bogus third party
> payer system that tries to cover over 90% of ALL medical costs, which
> is equivalent to your car insurance paying for 90% of your expenses
> to drive your car, or your homeowners paying for 90% of your routine
> home maintenance. Under these conditions, the incentive for all medical
> policyholders is to overuse and abuse the system (how many people
> do you know that go to the doctor for every damn sniffle?), and for
> doctors to order every test under the sun (fear of lawsuit has a
> big hand in this too). Then basic economic law sets in: virtually
> unlimited demand vs. limited supply guarantees perpetual price rises,
> for both treatment and "insurance".
>
> We didn't always have this crazy system. When I was a kid my parents
> had real health insurance called Major Medical to cover true emergencies
> and hospital stays, and they paid 100% of the premiums out of their
> own pockets. Doctors competed for patients (they made honest-to-God
> housecalls) and routine care was easily affordable for the typical
> family! And NO, poor people did not go untreated, in fact they got
> better care through charity then they do through Medicaid today.
> We easily had the best and most affordably healthcare system in the
> world.
>
> So what happened? Well, employer-provided third party payer "insurance",
> a response to wartime wage freezes imposed by government in the 1940's,
> was already skewing the market. Then Medicare was enacted in 1965,
> followed by Medicaid, and doctors fees for the elderly and poor were
> dictated by the government. This greatly exacerbated the demand-price
> hike spiral started by the employer-based systems, while simultaneously
> shifting much of the cost burden to the young - paradoxically making
> obtaining true health insurance less affordable to them.
>
> Far from being "every man to himself", libertarians believe in peaceful
> free market exchange, in combination with the division of labor for
> maximum productivity, as the ideal. All governments are antithetical
> to free markets, even when they pretend to be protecting them. We
> had something close to free market medicine once in America, and
> we could do no better than to understand that and demand that government
> remove its greedy hands from that sector of the marketplace.

Jun 17 03:01 PM

[djc:]

Yeah - GM wasnt keeping their promises to their people, so the union got em -- and legal bond holders got the shaft. Pensions, 401ks, all of em.

The problem with Obama is that he thinks hes smarter than everyone else, and so foists his far-left s'tragedy's on us whether we protest or not -- cuz he knows better than us.

I think hes arrogant and short-sighted at best -- and just another liar and crook at worst.

Oh - has he apologized to Iran yet for us horrible americans who think ahmadinejad's election was a farce ?

Please Obama - dont apologize for me, or this country.

Naieve fool.


Look out below !

Jun 17 03:34 PM

[agneaux:]

jpiretti: Take the Red Pill: Life is not "fair" and never will be. Medicine most certainly is a business, just like being a lawyer or a chef. A service (in this case, medical advice, surgery and medicine) is provided for money. That's Capitalism. Government should stay out of the way. Who's this "we" you keep talking about? "We" never demanded that people without insurance be given medical treatment. "We" never even demanded that drivers all be insured. (Here in my state, at least 10% of the drivers are uninsured, and it may be much higher; that's why I buy uninsured motorist coverage). That "Royal We" is the government, not me and you. France's health care percentage appears lower than ours only because they pay much higher taxes than we do. Read "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand. It changed my whole outlook on economic life.

>>It's not a privately owned business when in 2007 (depending on the report you read) 40-62% of all individual bankruptcies listed medical indebtedness as their #1 liability...75% of those folks had insurance. This from an industry that maximizes it's "free market" profits by denying services...we all pay for that. WE (tax payers) also pay for the 47 million who don't have insurance and have to use the emergency room as their primary physician. We demand car operators have insurance to protect all operators from collective liability. We demand home owners have insurance so banks are not exposed to losses that would be written off and absorbed by tax payers...I am sorry, but the Libertarian approach of "every man for himself" will not address the fact that we spend 16% of GDP on health care while 47 million have no insurance and another 13 million are under insured. Does it not strike you as odd that the most Socialized of the Socialized medicine examples (France) only spends 11% of their GDP on health care and everyone is covered with no deductibles?....before you scream I am a Socialist, I am not proposing this. It would not also address the fact that we (Alabama & Ky.) just lost 2 bids to Canada over the last 18 months on new Toyota plants(HC costs were cited). This is not entirely a question of fairness, but global competitiveness.

Jun 17 03:39 PM

[Boxed Merlot:]

Tom, I can appreciate your willingness to sit with your wife and ponder the future vistas as being painted by our new Commander in Chief. I remember doing much the same thing in my earlier years, the difference being, I lived through those years enjoying many of the benefits those previous leaders fought to bring about. I enjoyed a pretty good career in the building products industry, raised a family, bought a home and lived modestly but comfortably in the shadow of a strong and vibrant US economy. My particular field of expertise has all but evaporated in the current climate and I don’t see it returning any time soon. And believe me, I wasn’t in the buggy-whip trade. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not a pessimist, quite the contrary. My faith allows me the belief that I’ll be sitting around with others 150 years from now laughing about all this stuff we thought / think is so important to us now. But, for the near future, I’m quite concerned about the direction the bus is headed. I don’t believe the US is a true Democracy, (mob-rule), nor an oligarchy / fascist state, but a Republic, a land where Laws rule. I don’t think more laws are the solution, I think enforcement of laws already in existence will help. I am quite concerned when our Commander in Chief however has the role of CEO or the ability to appoint CEO status to others of corporations purchased by the government through bankruptcy courts manned by his employees. These are perilous times indeed.

On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg
> yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the
> issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises:
> he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental
> problems progress will be made.
>
> That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase
> in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction. Also,
> today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical. Derugulatin
> created chaos in the financial system.
>
> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 03:53 PM

[Chancer:]

Obama is most likely working on a plan to seize power for 40 years without the minor detail of an election.

I do not agree with or support anything Obama has done yet.

National healthcare or whatever form of ObummerCare they come up with will be a major mistake for the economy and for Americans.

Obama's second term will include his proposal for a VAT (probably totaling 30%) to pay for all that he has done. This will result in a significant drop in American standard of living and continue Obama's march to make us more like Europe.

Jun 17 03:56 PM

[agneaux:]

Yeah, just like the Pigs became farm owners in the book, "Animal Farm", by George Orwell. And we all know how that turned out... In the real world, all these companies would declare bankruptcy, sell off their unproductive assets, and other companies would spring up to provide better service. But that only happens in CapitalistLand, not here in Obamastan... here in Obamastan, we keep the Dead Zombie Companies walking for years. See DollarCollapse.com for some interesting economic reading.

>>All Obama did was accept the facts - inept management made promises they couldn't keep and so the employees became creditors and then owners. <<

Jun 17 03:59 PM

[Tom Armistead:]

Agree that enforcement of existing laws would have helped. CFMA was passed in 1999 specifically to exempt CDS and other derivatives from perfectly fine laws such as the Securities and Exchange Act which would have given the SEC authority to regulate them to prevent fraud, abuse and manipulation.

Part of our problems lay in a philosphy that advocated the removal of regulations and the emasculation of regulatory agencies that arose because of the financial crisis that led to the Depression.

Ultimately the failure of regulation led to a situation where the only alternative to a Depression was government intervention on a scale that nobody is comfortable with. I personally suffered major financial losses due to the lawlessness that prevailed in financial markets, and I am a firm supporter of Obama because he has undertaken to restore the rule of law in an area where it was deliberately removed by an Act of Congress and undermined by Elected Officials.


On Jun 17 03:53 PM Boxed Merlot wrote:

>
> Tom, I can appreciate your willingness to sit with your wife and
> ponder the future vistas as being painted by our new Commander in
> Chief. I remember doing much the same thing in my earlier years,
> the difference being, I lived through those years enjoying many of
> the benefits those previous leaders fought to bring about. I enjoyed
> a pretty good career in the building products industry, raised a
> family, bought a home and lived modestly but comfortably in the shadow
> of a strong and vibrant US economy. My particular field of expertise
> has all but evaporated in the current climate and I don’t see it
> returning any time soon. And believe me, I wasn’t in the buggy-whip
> trade. Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not a pessimist, quite the
> contrary. My faith allows me the belief that I’ll be sitting around
> with others 150 years from now laughing about all this stuff we thought
> / think is so important to us now. But, for the near future, I’m
> quite concerned about the direction the bus is headed. I don’t believe
> the US is a true Democracy, (mob-rule), nor an oligarchy / fascist
> state, but a Republic, a land where Laws rule. I don’t think more
> laws are the solution, I think enforcement of laws already in existence
> will help. I am quite concerned when our Commander in Chief however
> has the role of CEO or the ability to appoint CEO status to others
> of corporations purchased by the government through bankruptcy courts
> manned by his employees. These are perilous times indeed.
>
> On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

Jun 17 04:27 PM

[jpiretti:]

Let's address one point at a time.1) My comments do not address the business of medicine, but the insurance business that we depend on to deliver medical services.2) By "we" I mean you and I (assuming you also pay taxes). We pay the medical costs of the uninsured. And because of their primary source of delivery (emergancy room) we pay a very high, non-efficient rate for a unit of care.3) Your comments on France make no sense at all. They deliver a product (11% vs 16% of GDP) at a much more efficient rate for all of their citizens vs. only a majority of our citizens. Their tax rate has no basis in the efficiency rates.4) If the private market is more efficient, why do we see these huge descrepencies in the cost/coverage ratios? 5) I was forced to read all the Ann Rand novels in the 70's. The concept of selfishness being a virtue does not appeal to me. If I may quote Ms Rand " Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. " Does this not fly in the face of the health insurance industry that maximizes profits by denying services? There is nothing Ann Rand has written that can reconcile that dislocation in supply/demand.


On Jun 17 03:39 PM agneaux wrote:

> jpiretti: Take the Red Pill: Life is not "fair" and never will be.
> Medicine most certainly is a business, just like being a lawyer or
> a chef. A service (in this case, medical advice, surgery and medicine)
> is provided for money. That's Capitalism. Government should stay
> out of the way. Who's this "we" you keep talking about? "We" never
> demanded that people without insurance be given medical treatment.
> "We" never even demanded that drivers all be insured. (Here in my
> state, at least 10% of the drivers are uninsured, and it may be much
> higher; that's why I buy uninsured motorist coverage). That "Royal
> We" is the government, not me and you. France's health care percentage
> appears lower than ours only because they pay much higher taxes than
> we do. Read "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand. It changed my whole outlook
> on economic life.

Jun 17 05:30 PM

[Alphameister:]

I've reached this thread late, and my reward for wading through it was the excellent Libertarian comments by Glen L. Even though jpiretti and I don't have much in common philosophically, I respect the way he presented his views and his commitment to objective facts. I hope he will study the Libertarian philosophy in greater depth so that he will come to understand how every man looking out for himself under the discipline of a free market can only prosper by serving the needs of others in the best way he can. The "invisible hand" of Adam Smith sounds so simple but it really is quite profound.

Jun 17 06:35 PM

[Alphameister:]

Ayn Rand was also a transformative influence in my life, but for her, wealth was measured by the almighty dollar. I learned from her but moved beyond her to respect "The Virtue of Enllightened Self Interest" as opposed to her more provocative "The Virtue of Selfishness" (the very title of which poisons the mind of most people before they even read her).

Jun 17 06:42 PM

[jpiretti:]

I still have not seen how a Libertarian would reconcile the obvious "free market" glitch in the health care insurance business model...deny services paid for= higher profits=efficiency? I also notice in this thread the Ayn Rand concept of selfishness as a virtue as a Libertarian core concept (even though Rand refused to describe herself as a Libertarian). John Gault seems to be a hero of this new generation. When "Wall Street" first came out, I was an apprentice on the bond desk for Oppenheimer and even we saw the "Greed is Good" mantra as an indictment of our industry. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I miss the altruism of the 60's. I know bubbles built from greed have existed throughout history, but we never had a string like we had in the 80's-today in the 50's-70's. "What good for GM is good for the US" has not worked too well and I think it is fair to say what's good for Goldman Sachs or United Health Care is not nessesarily good for the US or it's global competitive standing....oh by the way, I now run a long-short portfolio, so I'll match my capitalistic creeds with anyone. Altruism and a sense of social awareness is nothing less than good business. The decay of altruism and may I dare say empathy has lead to a decay of business ethics since the 60's.


On Jun 17 06:35 PM Alphameister wrote:

> I've reached this thread late, and my reward for wading through it
> was the excellent Libertarian comments by Glen L. Even though jpiretti
> and I don't have much in common philosophically, I respect the way
> he presented his views and his commitment to objective facts. I hope
> he will study the Libertarian philosophy in greater depth so that
> he will come to understand how every man looking out for himself
> under the discipline of a free market can only prosper by serving
> the needs of others in the best way he can. The "invisible hand"
> of Adam Smith sounds so simple but it really is quite profound.

Jun 17 06:59 PM

[jpiretti:]

Alphameister,
If you have any reading suggestions, please recommend some...thanks.


On Jun 17 06:42 PM Alphameister wrote:

> Ayn Rand was also a transformative influence in my life, but for
> her, wealth was measured by the almighty dollar. I learned from her
> but moved beyond her to respect "The Virtue of Enllightened Self
> Interest" as opposed to her more provocative "The Virtue of Selfishness"
> (the very title of which poisons the mind of most people before they
> even read her).

Jun 17 07:04 PM

[growser7:]

Mr Armisted states that it took the US 50 years to wander into the woods and it may take 50 years to pull itself out. Well, we don't have 50 years. He seems to be overlooking the fact that all of this debt is interest bearing and a lot of it rolls over in the short term. Interest rates will rise as investors demand a risk premium to keep supporting the feckless US government. Interest service payments will rise dramatically at some point---and we will either default, inflate/monetize or institute draconian taxes to right the ship in the water. Meanwhile we will find that the "emerging economies" will have emerged and we will be a marginalized cautionary tale.

We can't afford too many "ifs" strung together to shape policy---we don't have the luxury of screwing this one up. America got away with a lot of stupidity for a long time, but the charts show that the day is past. As Einstein said: "There at two things that are infininte-the universe and stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."

Obama built his campaign on hope. I think his economic plans rely on it far too much.

Jun 17 07:51 PM

[Boxed Merlot:]

RE: Tom Armistead:

---Agree that enforcement of existing laws would have helped. CFMA was passed in 1999 specifically to exempt CDS and other derivatives from perfectly fine laws such as the Securities and Exchange Act which would have given the SEC authority to regulate them to prevent fraud, abuse and manipulation.
Part of our problems lay in a philosophy that advocated the removal of regulations and the emasculation of regulatory agencies that arose because of the financial crisis that led to the Depression.
Ultimately the failure of regulation led to a situation where the only alternative to a Depression was government intervention on a scale that nobody is comfortable with. I personally suffered major financial losses due to the lawlessness that prevailed in financial markets, and I am a firm supporter of Obama because he has undertaken to restore the rule of law in an area where it was deliberately removed by an Act of Congress and undermined by Elected Officials.---



I don’t want to appear partisan but CFMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in Jan of 2000, right? I could be wrong, but this was to more or less “recognize” an activity global financial markets were already engaged in. And while it may have been an initially valuable and legitimate tool to protect “producers” from suffering catastrophic losses, it seems the side-bettors at the crap table were emboldened by the appearance of a sure-bet, no apparent loss look to this “game”. We may take a while to sort this out through the market place, but I have confidence it will if rule of law is adhered to. Unfortunately, I continue believe the recent “sale” of the US automotive manufactures fails to meet this definition. And as for “Act of Congress”, well, that’s been a one horse, (donkey), show for quite some time now.

Jun 17 08:37 PM

[Eye Forget:]

You misspelled Obama. Its spelt Congress. Opps, lobbyists.

Jun 17 09:37 PM

[Falconflight:]

What drivel...it's hard to know even where to begin. Energy policy? You mean destruction of the most efficient, cost effective industry ever devised and supplant that with the rabid special interests econuts calls for "sustainable" (code for lowering economic expectations of wealth) growth via "alternative" energy schemes that haven't progressed hardly a millimeter since Jimmy Carter's Administration. Or maybe the mindless call to cut health care costs by government fiat, wow, incredible. Now I can see how corporate entities were co-op'd by the the major "isms" of the 20th Century.


On Jun 17 07:54 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> My wife and I listened to Obama's interviews with CNBC and Bloomberg
> yesterday and we were impressed with his willingness to address the
> issues and propose solutions. He was not issuing empty promises:
> he made careful use of the word "if." If the US addresses its fundamental
> problems progress will be made.
>
> That would mean a coherent 1) energy policy, controlling the increase
> in 2) medical costs, and achieving adequate public 3) eduction. Also,
> today's announcement on financial re-regulation is critical. Derugulatin
> created chaos in the financial system.
>
> Most of this article's charts cover 50 years or more. It took the
> US a long time to wander this far into the woods: it may take 50
> years of effective and farsighted leadership to undo the harm that
> has been done. This is a democracy. If Americans select effective
> and farsighted leaders, along the lines of Obama, then great things
> are possible.

Jun 17 10:50 PM

[sether:]

Libertarianism, and its free market dogma is infantile, with no more basis in reality or rational thought than any religion. Adam Smith is equally ridiculous as Joseph Smith when applied to real-world economies. Likewise the vague noodlings of Ayn Rand, who was naive and overly verbose at best. Her books are thick with fantasy, like L. Ron Hubbard's. Lose that religion folks, it sucks. Unregulated Free Markets eat themselves and enslave nations. I'm all for capitalism, but the main role of 'government' should be to protect us from the 'free market'.

Jun 17 11:23 PM

[Elliott:]

Inflation can't catch fire when there is high unemployment. High sustained inflation is normally caused by a wage-price spiral. You can't have wage pressure when the U.S. has such a huge labor surplus. Wage cuts and reduced hours are happening now. Workers have no leverage to ask for raises in this economy. It doesn't matter how big the monetary base is if it can't get into the hands of the population because they aren't working.

On Jun 17 09:03 PM palhad wrote:

>
> and heading higher. So far, the money multiplier (which drives inflation)
> has been weak, but the Fed is making a huge bet they can control
> all of this.

Jun 18 12:22 AM

[jpiretti:]

CFMA was signed by Clinton in 1999. I think if you combine that with the decision by the SEC to change the long standing leverage limitations for (and only) the 7 leading investment banking firms from 12-1 to 40-1, and you get your recipe for 3.5 times fee generation and total disaster.


On Jun 17 08:37 PM Boxed Merlot wrote:

> RE: Tom Armistead:
>
> ---Agree that enforcement of existing laws would have helped. CFMA
> was passed in 1999 specifically to exempt CDS and other derivatives
> from perfectly fine laws such as the Securities and Exchange Act
> which would have given the SEC authority to regulate them to prevent
> fraud, abuse and manipulation.
> Part of our problems lay in a philosophy that advocated the removal
> of regulations and the emasculation of regulatory agencies that arose
> because of the financial crisis that led to the Depression.
> Ultimately the failure of regulation led to a situation where the
> only alternative to a Depression was government intervention on a
> scale that nobody is comfortable with. I personally suffered major
> financial losses due to the lawlessness that prevailed in financial
> markets, and I am a firm supporter of Obama because he has undertaken
> to restore the rule of law in an area where it was deliberately removed
> by an Act of Congress and undermined by Elected Officials.--- <br/>
>
>
>
> I don’t want to appear partisan but CFMA was signed into law by Bill
> Clinton in Jan of 2000, right? I could be wrong, but this was to
> more or less “recognize” an activity global financial markets were
> already engaged in. And while it may have been an initially valuable
> and legitimate tool to protect “producers” from suffering catastrophic
> losses, it seems the side-bettors at the crap table were emboldened
> by the appearance of a sure-bet, no apparent loss look to this “game”.
> We may take a while to sort this out through the market place, but
> I have confidence it will if rule of law is adhered to. Unfortunately,
> I continue believe the recent “sale” of the US automotive manufactures
> fails to meet this definition. And as for “Act of Congress”, well,
> that’s been a one horse, (donkey), show for quite some time now.

Jun 18 07:08 AM

[jpiretti:]

The leverage rules were changed by Donaldson in 2003.


On Jun 18 07:08 AM jpiretti wrote:

> CFMA was signed by Clinton in 1999. I think if you combine that with
> the decision by the SEC to change the long standing leverage limitations
> for (and only) the 7 leading investment banking firms from 12-1 to
> 40-1, and you get your recipe for 3.5 times fee generation and total
> disaster.

Jun 18 07:10 AM

[ljwaks:]

As usual I am disappointed by the juvenile tone of most of these comments. Sure, let's turn the government over to Ayn Rand. Sure, let's blame Mr. Obama for the financial mess we are in. Look at the charts closely. Notice that there was a gradual reduction in the rate of disaster on most fronts during the Clinton years and a climax overshoot during the Bush years.

Mr. Obama is, for whatever defects he may have, an unusually intelligent, articulate, balanced, pragmatic leader. The fact that he has won over few of the progressive democrats and none of the Republicans proves that he is exactly what he promised to be, a moderate representative of the center-left Democratic party mainstream. And for all of those patriots out there, he is our president and he won the election.

Perhaps all of the blowhards on this site who think of Mr. Obama as nothing but a teleprompter reader might try to surpass the intelligence of his statements in their own spontaneous explosions.

Jun 18 11:25 AM

[jpiretti:]

It reminds me of analysis that was done to suggest on Fox News that Obama was the most divisive President in modern times. What they did was take the polling numbers of self described Democrats, in which he had a favorable reading of 84% and compared it to the favorable rating from self described Republicans which held at 26% to suggest the spread was the highest in history. What they failed mention is the favorable rating among Independents held at 64%. So if my math is correct, the spread between the sycophantic left and the center was 20% and the spread between the sycophantic right and the center was 38%...so, out of the three broad categories of party/political affiliation, who is the most divisive? Seems to be quite a pissing contest going on.


On Jun 18 11:25 AM ljwaks wrote:

> As usual I am disappointed by the juvenile tone of most of these
> comments. Sure, let's turn the government over to Ayn Rand. Sure,
> let's blame Mr. Obama for the financial mess we are in. Look at the
> charts closely. Notice that there was a gradual reduction in the
> rate of disaster on most fronts during the Clinton years and a climax
> overshoot during the Bush years.
>
> Mr. Obama is, for whatever defects he may have, an unusually intelligent,
> articulate, balanced, pragmatic leader. The fact that he has won
> over few of the progressive democrats and none of the Republicans
> proves that he is exactly what he promised to be, a moderate representative
> of the center-left Democratic party mainstream. And for all of those
> patriots out there, he is our president and he won the election.
>
>
> Perhaps all of the blowhards on this site who think of Mr. Obama
> as nothing but a teleprompter reader might try to surpass the intelligence
> of his statements in their own spontaneous explosions.

Jun 18 01:56 PM

[Al-USA:]

Alot of good comments here, but in case it has not already been said, both Republicans and Democrats answer to the same BOSS, the American financial Oligarchy. Sure, you can delude yourself into thinking the USA is still a democracy and your votes counts for much and all that but, also take the time to peruse the articles below.

More information below:
The Quiet (American) Coup
www.theatlantic.com/do...

Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism
www.nytimes.com/2009/0...

Banks Counted on Looting America’s Coffers
tinyurl.com/bkezmt

Jun 20 05:34 AM

[punk_ash:]

I would expect more sensible comment from a top 100 commentator. Clinton had an expected surplus for one year amidst the biggest bubble world has seen since the big bang. Bush got the biggest bubble of all times in inheritance.

The national debt has been rising since 1982, it caught speed up after the dot com bubble when people got spoiled with money and started borrowing like crazy. While I am no big fan of GW, but blaming him for everything will not get you anywhere.


On Jun 17 10:01 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> You're missing the point. Geo W Bush was driving the bus when it
> went off the cliff. 8 years of total hypocrisy, catering to the
> far out right wing of the GOP while spending like a drunken sailor
> and refusing to let regulators stop the lying, cheating, stealing,
> manipulating and fraud that characterized the financial system -
> all this in the name of a stupid ideology of "free markets" by which
> he meant wretched excess of speculation and profiteering.
>
> Unfortunately there is a price to be paid just to get the vehicle
> back on the road. Bear in mind that we had budget surpluses thanks
> to Clinton when Bush took over. If you favor hypocrisy and stupidity
> over intelligence and honesty then I can't help you.

Jun 24 08:19 PM