We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

[Jarhead]

The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

Yes, a new socialist government for WE THE PEOPLE, all of us!! Not some of the individuals. Where government controls it's own national Security. Everyone works for the greater good and has living wages and full benefits for life.

I am not sure a conservative can deliver on that promise.

A conservaitve would not want to make that promise.

The greater good to a conservative is the ability for everyone to choose their own path and have their own destiny in their own hands.

You may not see that as a greater good. That is your choice. Me? I have more confidence in myself than I do in someone telling me what to do, how to do it and when to do it.

And I have more confidence in my community acting on their own instincts as well.

 

[sangha]

Government definitely creates a safe environment in which individuals can create wealth. The United States is viewed by the world as a very safe place to invest. Investors are not concerned that the government will be overthrown. Federal regulations protect investors by requiring full disclosure to stock holders, prohibition against insider trading, and a number of other schemes. No one is concerned that if their bank closes they will loose all their money. We have serious financial problems as does most of the world, however we are still consider the bastion of financial security.

Does government actually create wealth? Maybe. If government operated a successful business then they would be creating wealth. However, the money needed to create that business belongs to the tax payers. The taxpayers are the owners therefore the wealth that the business creates belongs to the owners, the taxpayers.

Regarding your first paragraph I totally agree, and your first sentence is the proper distillation of the responsibility of the Federal government: The government should protect all law abiding citizens and their property and foster a safe environment for them to conduct business and their lives. All tax revenues should be collected and spent only in regard to acquiring the means to fulfill those important but limited responsibilities of government.

As far as a government being able to create a profitable business I have no doubt as to that possibility with taxpayers being the individuals making up such an entity not unlike venture fund groups. But the, supposedly, independent Fed Reserve is increasingly cited as becoming more politicized with its efforts now being blamed for past bubbles, recessions and, now, dollar devaluation (QE2 of 600 billion USD) and possible future inflation if and when we come out of this recession. Therefore individual businesses owned by the government would have irrepressible political pressures upon them thereby producing crony capitalism and measures that would favor that government entity over its competitors. Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and, now, GM (Especially their failures: do we bail them out and continue down that road to perdition?).

As to government regulation, while some is necessary this also can be used to political advantage of favored special interests.

JM

Govt is a non-profit entity, so evaluating it based on profit is just an excuse to gaurantee you win the debate, but it has nothing to do with reality. The claim was the govt does not create wealth, not that govt does not create profitable businesses. Changing the argument may lead you to win a debate on the internet, but it does nothing to support the baseless claim that govt does not create wealth

Whenever the Fed lends money to a bank, it is injecting capital into the economy. "Capital" is the accounting term for "wealth". In addition, the investments in infrastructure and technology have created vast sums of wealth for millions of americans

And as to govt regulation, deregulation can also be used to political advantage of favored special interests. Anything the govt does is vulnerable to corruption. That's no excuse for not doing anything.

 

[Flopper]

Dismantling the government is not necessary to solve our financial problems. For 2010 the CBO estimated the deficit as 1.35 trillion dollars, up 900 billion since the beginning of the recession in 2008. Decreases in tax revenue due to the recession accounts for 400 billion. We know where the other 500 billion went, government bailouts such as GM, the jobs bill, unemployment extensions, etc. Of course there is disagreement as whether these expenditures were necessary but I think we can all agree that that these expenditures would not have been made had there been no recession. So as we come out of recession, which is happening now, these expenditures will go away bringing the deficit back to about the same level it was prior to the recession, about 450 billion.

A 450 billion dollar deficit is nothing to take lightly, however that figure will come down as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are phased out savings 150 to 200 billion a year.

The remaining deficit can be wiped out by freezing government spending at the current level. Federal revenues are projected to rise 15% in 2011 and 11% in 2012. If we have the guts to do this we could have a surplus by 2013.

So we can wipe out the deficit without dismantling any of the government. In fact we don't even have to increase any taxes.

Of course we are not out of the woods, we have some long term problems such as healthcare and social security to deal with. There are solutions to both these problems, we just have to agree on them.


Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JamesMorrison]

Considering the track record of the federal reserve, I'm not sure I would want them on my side. Over the last 30 years, they have consistently made the wrong calls. Granted it's not easy to determine the proper monetary actions to take since the results of actions may not be known for many months. I have always thought we would be just as well off if the Fed stayed out of the market and left interest rates alone.

I agree. Bernake assures us that he can stuff the inflation horses back into the Fed barn by rasing interest rates which he can do "in 15 minutes". But he doesn't seem to understand the money he has pumped into the economy is still out there sitting in the banks. Businesses are not investing that money because of the anti-business climate the present government has created in rhetoric and deed (obamacare taxes and regulation, when discovered, scare business owners for one thing, new NLRB regulations favoring unions is another). If at any point business feels comfortable with expanding and hiring more people, that money will be dumped into the economy and Bernake will have absolutely little control over it. Further, what measures he might use, such as increasing rates might either be too little too late or so repressive as to pull the economy down into another recession. Another danger sign is that both Bernake and Geither favor slight inflation if anything. This would further call into question the ability of the federal bank to get the monetary timing correct.

Honestly, I agree with many that now want to eliminate the dual role of the FED (Low unemployment and stable prices) and replace it with a single mandate to just assure Americans, and the world, a stable currency.

JM

 

[Flopper]

Considering the track record of the federal reserve, I'm not sure I would want them on my side. Over the last 30 years, they have consistently made the wrong calls. Granted it's not easy to determine the proper monetary actions to take since the results of actions may not be known for many months. I have always thought we would be just as well off if the Fed stayed out of the market and left interest rates alone.

I agree. Bernake assures us that he can stuff the inflation horses back into the Fed barn by rasing interest rates which he can do "in 15 minutes". But he doesn't seem to understand the money he has pumped into the economy is still out there sitting in the banks. Businesses are not investing that money because of the anti-business climate the present government has created in rhetoric and deed (obamacare taxes and regulation, when discovered, scare business owners for one thing, new NLRB regulations favoring unions is another). If at any point business feels comfortable with expanding and hiring more people, that money will be dumped into the economy and Bernake will have absolutely little control over it. Further, what measures he might use, such as increasing rates might either be too little too late or so repressive as to pull the economy down into another recession. Another danger sign is that both Bernake and Geither favor slight inflation if anything. This would further call into question the ability of the federal bank to get the monetary timing correct.

Honestly, I agree with many that now want to eliminate the dual role of the FED (Low unemployment and stable prices) and replace it with a single mandate to just assure Americans, and the world, a stable currency.

JM

I agree with you with a few exceptions. Commercial and Industrial loans from banks have been slowly rising most of 2010. Business is expanding. Most analysts seem to think that business will continue to expand at increasing rate throughout the year. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists revealed an average prediction of 3.2% US GDP growth in each quarter of 2011. This is up from 2.1% in 2010. So there is no doubt that the economy is expanding and is projected to expand at a faster rate.

Your claim that Obama is creating an anti-business climate is purely subjective. The facts are that businesses are investing and the economy is expanding. I agree that there are increased regulations on the financial sector which have not been well received by many, but neither was the collapse of financial markets in 2008.

 

[Foxfyre]

Dismantling the government is not necessary to solve our financial problems. For 2010 the CBO estimated the deficit as 1.35 trillion dollars, up 900 billion since the beginning of the recession in 2008. Decreases in tax revenue due to the recession accounts for 400 billion. We know where the other 500 billion went, government bailouts such as GM, the jobs bill, unemployment extensions, etc. Of course there is disagreement as whether these expenditures were necessary but I think we can all agree that that these expenditures would not have been made had there been no recession. So as we come out of recession, which is happening now, these expenditures will go away bringing the deficit back to about the same level it was prior to the recession, about 450 billion.

A 450 billion dollar deficit is nothing to take lightly, however that figure will come down as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are phased out savings 150 to 200 billion a year.

The remaining deficit can be wiped out by freezing government spending at the current level. Federal revenues are projected to rise 15% in 2011 and 11% in 2012. If we have the guts to do this we could have a surplus by 2013.

So we can wipe out the deficit without dismantling any of the government. In fact we don't even have to increase any taxes.

Of course we are not out of the woods, we have some long term problems such as healthcare and social security to deal with. There are solutions to both these problems, we just have to agree on them.


Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why continue to make available so much of the people's resources for the federal government to spend any way it wants?

James M was right up there. If the federal government is limited to securing our rights and providing the common defense--in other words doing that which it was originally intended to do--it could operate effectively and efficiently on a small fraction of what it now requires and takes.

Medicare and Social Security alone will sink the ship if we don't rethink that and start doing it very differently very soon. With the huge mass of baby boomers still left to retire and likely to live a good long while, we are looking at trillions in deficits in those programs alone.

For years, politicians and policymakers have reassured the American public that the Social Security system, which sends monthly checks out to 53 million beneficiaries, is safely solvent -- and will be for decades to come. But federal spending and income data from the Treasury Department reveal that the Social Security program is already deep in the red, with outlays exceeding payroll tax revenues by $76 billion in 2010 alone.

This stunning shortfall calls into question the rosy fiscal forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the program's future solvency.

The annual report of the Social Security Trustees, published in August 2010, forecast that the primary Social Security program, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), would not exceed its tax receipts until 2018. Unfortunately, it happened in fiscal 2010, which ended in October. That year's outlays for the OASI fund were about $580 billion, while receipts came to only $540 billion -- a whopping $40 billion shortfall.

Add in the deficit from the second Social Security fund, Disability Insurance (DI), and the gap between total SSA outlays ($707 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury) and tax receipts ($631 billion) grows to $76 billion -- more than 10% of the program's expenses.

Short-Term Estimates Were Way Off the Mark

The SSA trustees had estimated a $41 billion deficit (excluding interest income), but the final deficit came to $76 billion -- almost twice what they had guessed. Just as troubling, their estimate for total SSA income in 2010 (which included both Social Security payroll taxes and interest paid by the Treasury on the Social Security Trust Funds) was $791 billion -- a number that overshot the actual total income of $741 billion (tax receipts of $631 billion plus interest income of about $110 billion) by $50 billion.

See full article from DailyFinance:
Social Security Is in the Red Already: Are We Borrowing Trouble? - DailyFinance

 

[Flopper]

Dismantling the government is not necessary to solve our financial problems. For 2010 the CBO estimated the deficit as 1.35 trillion dollars, up 900 billion since the beginning of the recession in 2008. Decreases in tax revenue due to the recession accounts for 400 billion. We know where the other 500 billion went, government bailouts such as GM, the jobs bill, unemployment extensions, etc. Of course there is disagreement as whether these expenditures were necessary but I think we can all agree that that these expenditures would not have been made had there been no recession. So as we come out of recession, which is happening now, these expenditures will go away bringing the deficit back to about the same level it was prior to the recession, about 450 billion.

A 450 billion dollar deficit is nothing to take lightly, however that figure will come down as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are phased out savings 150 to 200 billion a year.

The remaining deficit can be wiped out by freezing government spending at the current level. Federal revenues are projected to rise 15% in 2011 and 11% in 2012. If we have the guts to do this we could have a surplus by 2013.

So we can wipe out the deficit without dismantling any of the government. In fact we don't even have to increase any taxes.

Of course we are not out of the woods, we have some long term problems such as healthcare and social security to deal with. There are solutions to both these problems, we just have to agree on them.


Historical Amount of Revenue by Source
Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But why continue to make available so much of the people's resources for the federal government to spend any way it wants?

James M was right up there. If the federal government is limited to securing our rights and providing the common defense--in other words doing that which it was originally intended to do--it could operate effectively and efficiently on a small fraction of what it now requires and takes.

Medicare and Social Security alone will sink the ship if we don't rethink that and start doing it very differently very soon. With the huge mass of baby boomers still left to retire and likely to live a good long while, we are looking at trillions in deficits in those programs alone.

For years, politicians and policymakers have reassured the American public that the Social Security system, which sends monthly checks out to 53 million beneficiaries, is safely solvent -- and will be for decades to come. But federal spending and income data from the Treasury Department reveal that the Social Security program is already deep in the red, with outlays exceeding payroll tax revenues by $76 billion in 2010 alone.

This stunning shortfall calls into question the rosy fiscal forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the program's future solvency.

The annual report of the Social Security Trustees, published in August 2010, forecast that the primary Social Security program, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), would not exceed its tax receipts until 2018. Unfortunately, it happened in fiscal 2010, which ended in October. That year's outlays for the OASI fund were about $580 billion, while receipts came to only $540 billion -- a whopping $40 billion shortfall.

Add in the deficit from the second Social Security fund, Disability Insurance (DI), and the gap between total SSA outlays ($707 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury) and tax receipts ($631 billion) grows to $76 billion -- more than 10% of the program's expenses.

Short-Term Estimates Were Way Off the Mark

The SSA trustees had estimated a $41 billion deficit (excluding interest income), but the final deficit came to $76 billion -- almost twice what they had guessed. Just as troubling, their estimate for total SSA income in 2010 (which included both Social Security payroll taxes and interest paid by the Treasury on the Social Security Trust Funds) was $791 billion -- a number that overshot the actual total income of $741 billion (tax receipts of $631 billion plus interest income of about $110 billion) by $50 billion.

See full article from DailyFinance:
Social Security Is in the Red Already: Are We Borrowing Trouble? - DailyFinance

"But why continue to make available so much of the people's resources for the federal government to spend any way it wants?"

The federal government does not just spend money as it please. All appropriations are approved by Congress. When a new law is passed it goes to the Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Their job is to consolidate and codify the law passed by Congress without making any substantive changes to the law. Any change to the law must be signed off by the President and Congress. In the case of the establishment on a new governmental function the law with supporting documentation flows through the affected department. Regulations are created that follow the letter of the law. Depending on the function, responsibility, staffing, procedures are created. The new dept, agency, bureau, or program is subject to audit by the GAO, an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the "congressional watchdog," GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. They confirm that the funds are being spend are in accordance with the law. So no, government doesn't spend money any way it wants. Money is spent in accordance with laws passed by Congress.

Obviously, the government does a hell of lot more than just providing for the common defense and protecting our rights. The constitutionality of other functions depends on your interpretation of the Constitution. Strong arguments can be made for and against the constitutionality of the Dept. of Education, Health & Human Service, Labor, Transportation, and Energy and probably several others. The question should not be the intent of the forefathers, but rather of what value are these functions to the nation. IMHO, these functions of government make us a nation instead of a collections of states banded together for common defense and trade. This seem to be where the Right and Left differ. The Right seeks strong states, where the Left seeks a strong nation.

 

[JamesMorrison]

Government definitely creates a safe environment in which individuals can create wealth. The United States is viewed by the world as a very safe place to invest. Investors are not concerned that the government will be overthrown. Federal regulations protect investors by requiring full disclosure to stock holders, prohibition against insider trading, and a number of other schemes. No one is concerned that if their bank closes they will loose all their money. We have serious financial problems as does most of the world, however we are still consider the bastion of financial security.

Does government actually create wealth? Maybe. If government operated a successful business then they would be creating wealth. However, the money needed to create that business belongs to the tax payers. The taxpayers are the owners therefore the wealth that the business creates belongs to the owners, the taxpayers.

Regarding your first paragraph I totally agree, and your first sentence is the proper distillation of the responsibility of the Federal government: The government should protect all law abiding citizens and their property and foster a safe environment for them to conduct business and their lives. All tax revenues should be collected and spent only in regard to acquiring the means to fulfill those important but limited responsibilities of government.

As far as a government being able to create a profitable business I have no doubt as to that possibility with taxpayers being the individuals making up such an entity not unlike venture fund groups. But the, supposedly, independent Fed Reserve is increasingly cited as becoming more politicized with its efforts now being blamed for past bubbles, recessions and, now, dollar devaluation (QE2 of 600 billion USD) and possible future inflation if and when we come out of this recession. Therefore individual businesses owned by the government would have irrepressible political pressures upon them thereby producing crony capitalism and measures that would favor that government entity over its competitors. Think Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and, now, GM (Especially their failures: do we bail them out and continue down that road to perdition?).

As to government regulation, while some is necessary this also can be used to political advantage of favored special interests.

JM

Govt is a non-profit entity, so evaluating it based on profit is just an excuse to gaurantee you win the debate, but it has nothing to do with reality. The claim was the govt does not create wealth, not that govt does not create profitable businesses. Changing the argument may lead you to win a debate on the internet, but it does nothing to support the baseless claim that govt does not create wealth

Whenever the Fed lends money to a bank, it is injecting capital into the economy. "Capital" is the accounting term for "wealth". In addition, the investments in infrastructure and technology have created vast sums of wealth for millions of americans

And as to govt regulation, deregulation can also be used to political advantage of favored special interests. Anything the govt does is vulnerable to corruption. That's no excuse for not doing anything.

At best you misread what I wrote, at worst you are simply misrepresenting it so that you can try to devalue my argument by claiming that I changed the subject to, well, something else. Your history of the Social Security/Medicare red herring has already been noted on this thread. To that you now add this strawman of subject changing. My supposition of governmentally owned businesses was clearly qualified by the words "possibility" and the transition back to my claim that government cannot really create wealth was clearly demonstrated by the word "but". Your assertion that “Govt is a non-profit entity” bumps into the reality that GSEs such as Fannie and Freddie create wealth but, ultimately, at taxpayer expense thru private profit and public risk. This is obviously the worst kind of deal for the U.S. taxpayer who gets all the risk and none of the profit. Such an assertion ignores real world realities of government intervention via regulation, subsidies, and, in the case of the GSEs, outright promotion of private companies (the two FMs are or, more importantly at least, were, privately traded companies on the stock exchanges). My assertion was simply: even given a profitable ‘government’ company political realities would simply forswear any profits flowing equally to all taxpayers from such an entity thereby making it unconstitutional in the second degree.

Whenever the Fed lends money to a bank, it is injecting capital into the economy. "Capital" is the accounting term for "wealth". In addition, the investments in infrastructure and technology have created vast sums of wealth for millions of Americans

Where does the Fed get the "Capital" it injects into the economy? What magic is involved whereby more wealth is created simply because some of it passes through the Federal government? Do States possess this magic also? I would submit, again, that the fact that government cannot create wealth lies in the real world answer to the question: Why can't the government create the wealth needed to eliminate its debt by just printing more money? The ultimate answer lies in the fact that individuals were creating wealth long before governments got involved.

You are confusing wealth creation by government with wealth redistribution by government, which is what is really happening here. Further, I have already cited various examples of infrastructure creation that need absolutely no Federal governmental involvement such as the railroad, trucking, and shipping industries. Individuals, groups, and states can come together to accomplish infrastructure and since the discussion here is about the limited areas of legitimate power and responsibilities of the federal government all this is not "subject changing". Further, although both state and the federal government have provided infrastructure and that this has undoubtedly benefited the "general welfare', I have already pointed out that this also allows the federal government to trespass on both state's and individuals' rights in areas that are constitutionally off limits to the central government by holding those funds taken from states and individuals hostage to federal legislative efforts.

And as to govt regulation, deregulation can also be used to political advantage of favored special interests. Anything the govt does is vulnerable to corruption. That's no excuse for not doing anything.

Your first sentence is nonsense, to regulate is to restrict. Deregulation allows less restriction which then allows more competition, greater efficiencies, and more individual liberty. Regulation gives power and seeming relevance to those that may not have our best interests in their hearts (see the recent attempt by the FCC to take over the internet referenced with the misnomer Net Neutrality). We can argue about the proper level of regulation but only in the context of it being a necessary evil. The WSJ just had a piece of how Americans will not be able to participate in the present Facebook IPO (buy stock in the company) because the SEC regulations that Congress passed (Sarbanes-Oxley) are so onerous and burdensome that Goldman Sachs decided not to bother offering the stock here in America where Sarbox holds sway. However, any other nation’s citizens are free to do so.
Your "Anything the govt does is vulnerable to corruption." argues the conservative point for less government. As for "not doing anything", it has been said that wise government should ask not only what it can and cannot do but that, if it can, whether it should.

JM

 

[Flopper]

For years, politicians and policymakers have reassured the American public that the Social Security system, which sends monthly checks out to 53 million beneficiaries, is safely solvent -- and will be for decades to come. But federal spending and income data from the Treasury Department reveal that the Social Security program is already deep in the red, with outlays exceeding payroll tax revenues by $76 billion in 2010 alone.

This stunning shortfall calls into question the rosy fiscal forecasts made by the Social Security Administration (SSA) about the program's future solvency.

The annual report of the Social Security Trustees, published in August 2010, forecast that the primary Social Security program, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), would not exceed its tax receipts until 2018. Unfortunately, it happened in fiscal 2010, which ended in October. That year's outlays for the OASI fund were about $580 billion, while receipts came to only $540 billion -- a whopping $40 billion shortfall.

Add in the deficit from the second Social Security fund, Disability Insurance (DI), and the gap between total SSA outlays ($707 billion in 2010, according to the Treasury) and tax receipts ($631 billion) grows to $76 billion -- more than 10% of the program's expenses.

Short-Term Estimates Were Way Off the Mark

The SSA trustees had estimated a $41 billion deficit (excluding interest income), but the final deficit came to $76 billion -- almost twice what they had guessed. Just as troubling, their estimate for total SSA income in 2010 (which included both Social Security payroll taxes and interest paid by the Treasury on the Social Security Trust Funds) was $791 billion -- a number that overshot the actual total income of $741 billion (tax receipts of $631 billion plus interest income of about $110 billion) by $50 billion.

See full article from DailyFinance:
Social Security Is in the Red Already: Are We Borrowing Trouble? - DailyFinance

If you take this article word for word, it is true. But the implication that Social Security is bankrupt is absolutely false. You might need to read the entire article and do just a bit of research to understand what's happening.

The revenue from payroll taxes, FICA is down about 12% in 2010 which is more than anticipated. Therefore the difference between the revenue and the payments had to be pulled out of the trust fund which has a balance of about 2.3 trillion. SSA anticipated that we would not begin to deplete the trust fund until 2018, but due to the recession we will begin to deplete the fund sooner. In 2008, the SSA projected that the fund would be wiped out in 2041. Some suggest that due to the recession it could be as soon as 2037.

Using a worst case example, Congress does nothing over next 20 years, retirement age remains the same, FICA taxes are not increase, benefits are not reduced, and there is no strong economic recovery, then Social Security payments in 2041 are reduced by 25%, equal to the amount of Social Security tax collected.

Paraphrasing the Mark Twain quote, Reports of the death of Social Security have been greatly exaggerated, primarily for political reasons.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I agree with you with a few exceptions. Commercial and Industrial loans from banks have been slowly rising most of 2010. Business is expanding. Most analysts seem to think that business will continue to expand at increasing rate throughout the year. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists revealed an average prediction of 3.2% US GDP growth in each quarter of 2011. This is up from 2.1% in 2010. So there is no doubt that the economy is expanding and is projected to expand at a faster rate.

Your claim that Obama is creating an anti-business climate is purely subjective. The facts are that businesses are investing and the economy is expanding. I agree that there are increased regulations on the financial sector which have not been well received by many, but neither was the collapse of financial markets in 2008.

Well, many economists have also remarked how absolutley anemic the recovery has been compared to those in the past. As a reason they cite the unpredictable business climate fostered by this administration. You are perfectly correct in assuming that I am just being subjective with my analysis but it is based on my reading of those that are in the know. Further, the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and even business leaders have told Obama, in meetings with him, of these same concerns. President Obama's rhetoric about the wealthy, fat cat bankers, and the evil people on wall street combined with his 'share the wealth' and tax the rich ("at some point don't you have enough money?") statements further fuel the climate of concern whether businesses will actually invest and start hiring. Obama is caught between the rhetoric he needs to please his left and the union bosses and actions that would assure business that they might actually use the 1.5 trillion USD they keep on the sidelines waiting for some predictability regarding government regulation, taxes, and Obamacare insurance mandates whatever they might turn out to be...but that is the problem as business sees it. Since I am not posting the urls to back this up feel free to reject this post, but, believe me, unpredictability is it in a nutshell.

Later Dude (or Dudette),

JM

 

[Flopper]

I agree with you with a few exceptions. Commercial and Industrial loans from banks have been slowly rising most of 2010. Business is expanding. Most analysts seem to think that business will continue to expand at increasing rate throughout the year. A recent Wall Street Journal survey of economists revealed an average prediction of 3.2% US GDP growth in each quarter of 2011. This is up from 2.1% in 2010. So there is no doubt that the economy is expanding and is projected to expand at a faster rate.

Your claim that Obama is creating an anti-business climate is purely subjective. The facts are that businesses are investing and the economy is expanding. I agree that there are increased regulations on the financial sector which have not been well received by many, but neither was the collapse of financial markets in 2008.

Well, many economists have also remarked how absolutley anemic the recovery has been compared to those in the past. As a reason they cite the unpredictable business climate fostered by this administration. You are perfectly correct in assuming that I am just being subjective with my analysis but it is based on my reading of those that are in the know. Further, the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce and even business leaders have told Obama, in meetings with him, of these same concerns. President Obama's rhetoric about the wealthy, fat cat bankers, and the evil people on wall street combined with his 'share the wealth' and tax the rich ("at some point don't you have enough money?") statements further fuel the climate of concern whether businesses will actually invest and start hiring. Obama is caught between the rhetoric he needs to please his left and the union bosses and actions that would assure business that they might actually use the 1.5 trillion USD they keep on the sidelines waiting for some predictability regarding government regulation, taxes, and Obamacare insurance mandates whatever they might turn out to be...but that is the problem as business sees it. Since I am not posting the urls to back this up feel free to reject this post, but, believe me, unpredictability is it in a nutshell.

Later Dude (or Dudette),

JM

One of the best measures of where the economy is going is the stock market. Last year it was up nearly 13%. Unlike forecast by economist and opinions of the Chamber of Commerce, the market is telling us that the consensus of investors believe the economy will improve and they are backing it up with their money not their mouth. It is not a question of will the economy improve but how fast. Last year at this time about half the economists were expecting a double dip in the economy something you don't hear much about today. Two years ago, a lot of economists were predicting an economic disaster worst than the great depression.

Ignore the political noise and ask yourself, what has the government done that was so hostile to business over the last two years. Was the job creation bill that made over 700 billion dollars available to businesses to expand and create jobs a hostile act? Was bailing out half the major banks in the country that were on the verge of failure a hostile act? Was agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts hostile to business? Were new tax incentives for small business hostile to business? Was passing a healthcare bill that would give the insurance industry 35 million new customers hostile to business?

The Financial Reform Bill was criticized by the opposition, claiming that the new regulations would weaken the recover and hurt business. The CEO of Citibank along with a number of other large banks agreed that although the reforms would require changes in their operation, most of these reforms were needed.

It is illogical to think that Obama wants to create obstacles that discourages business from expanding. It is critical to his future that the rate of business expansion increase to bring down unemployment. His political future depends on it.

It's not the rhetoric of politicians that effects business decisions , it's actions and the actions of the administration has certainly not been hostile to business despite the rhetoric.

 

[Foxfyre]

What government did that was so hostile to business was to pass a healthcare overhaul that literally threatened to sink the national treasury and impose such onerous requirements on business that they would be unable to compete anywhere.

What government did that was so hostile to business was to threaten to allow the Bush tax reform to expire and thus increase taxes drastically on the very Americans who make things, provide services, expand, capitalize, and create jobs

What government did that was so hostile to business was to order a moratorium on new oil production in the Gulf and various other places that not only was devastating to the economies of those areas, but was certain to increase costs for all processes dependent on petroleum and that is a LOT of processes.

That was on top of a threatened cap and trade bill favored by the Congressional leadership and the President that would create more negative pressure on U.S. business than any other and further compromise its competitiveness on a world market.

A whole new way of thinking about government is for government to create the best possible business climate for U.S. commerce and industry and then get out of the way and let Americans do their thing. They did it better than anybody in the world until government began inserting itself negatively into the process.

(The stock market can reflect the health of U.S. commerce and industry and right now you don't see all that must investment in U.S. commercie and industry. My own investments include some U.S. based operations but are mostly in a whole lot of stuff dependent on economic health overseas. When U.S. business is allowed to recover, I will be moving most of my investment back to domestic products. People invest in the market when they have noplace else to go with their money.)

 

[Flopper]

What government did that was so hostile to business was to pass a healthcare overhaul that literally threatened to sink the national treasury and impose such onerous requirements on business that they would be unable to compete anywhere.

What government did that was so hostile to business was to threaten to allow the Bush tax reform to expire and thus increase taxes drastically on the very Americans who make things, provide services, expand, capitalize, and create jobs

What government did that was so hostile to business was to order a moratorium on new oil production in the Gulf and various other places that not only was devastating to the economies of those areas, but was certain to increase costs for all processes dependent on petroleum and that is a LOT of processes.

That was on top of a threatened cap and trade bill favored by the Congressional leadership and the President that would create more negative pressure on U.S. business than any other and further compromise its competitiveness on a world market.

A whole new way of thinking about government is for government to create the best possible business climate for U.S. commerce and industry and then get out of the way and let Americans do their thing. They did it better than anybody in the world until government began inserting itself negatively into the process.

(The stock market can reflect the health of U.S. commerce and industry and right now you don't see all that must investment in U.S. commercie and industry. My own investments include some U.S. based operations but are mostly in a whole lot of stuff dependent on economic health overseas. When U.S. business is allowed to recover, I will be moving most of my investment back to domestic products. People invest in the market when they have noplace else to go with their money.)

I don't agree with many of your points but I don't have the time to address all of them. Business pays far more attention to government actions than political rhetoric. On balance the Obama administration effect on business has been more positive than negative.

As far as healthcare cost, the latest estimates from the CBO, are that the healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $123 billion for the time frame 2010-2019. The CBO has also estimated premiums will rise 10% due to the new law. Of course there are loads of articles on the net, all partisan that project huge deficits and skyrocketing premiums. Businesses looking at expansion have far more important considerations than how much premiums will rise or what may or may not happen with the deficit.

The economy is expanding. The GDP is growing. The consensus of economist expect greater growth in 2011 than 2010.

 

[Foxfyre]

What government did that was so hostile to business was to pass a healthcare overhaul that literally threatened to sink the national treasury and impose such onerous requirements on business that they would be unable to compete anywhere.

What government did that was so hostile to business was to threaten to allow the Bush tax reform to expire and thus increase taxes drastically on the very Americans who make things, provide services, expand, capitalize, and create jobs

What government did that was so hostile to business was to order a moratorium on new oil production in the Gulf and various other places that not only was devastating to the economies of those areas, but was certain to increase costs for all processes dependent on petroleum and that is a LOT of processes.

That was on top of a threatened cap and trade bill favored by the Congressional leadership and the President that would create more negative pressure on U.S. business than any other and further compromise its competitiveness on a world market.

A whole new way of thinking about government is for government to create the best possible business climate for U.S. commerce and industry and then get out of the way and let Americans do their thing. They did it better than anybody in the world until government began inserting itself negatively into the process.

(The stock market can reflect the health of U.S. commerce and industry and right now you don't see all that must investment in U.S. commercie and industry. My own investments include some U.S. based operations but are mostly in a whole lot of stuff dependent on economic health overseas. When U.S. business is allowed to recover, I will be moving most of my investment back to domestic products. People invest in the market when they have noplace else to go with their money.)

I don't agree with many of your points but I don't have the time to address all of them. Business pays far more attention to government actions than political rhetoric. On balance the Obama administration effect on business has been more positive than negative.

As far as healthcare cost, the latest estimates from the CBO, are that the healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $123 billion for the time frame 2010-2019. The CBO has also estimated premiums will rise 10% due to the new law. Of course there are loads of articles on the net, all partisan that project huge deficits and skyrocketing premiums. Businesses looking at expansion have far more important considerations than how much premiums will rise or what may or may not happen with the deficit.

The economy is expanding. The GDP is growing. The consensus of economist expect greater growth in 2011 than 2010.

You do understand that the CBO is REQUIRED to use the numbers provided to it by the Administation yes? Even CBO has acknowledged that those numbers do not include all the components that will affect the economy. And independent analysis shows very different numbers than what the CBO came up with. The CBO also initially estimated Medicare would cost a maximum of $78 billion. It has eclipsed that by many hundreds of percent.

Once it was promised that social security would never cost Americans more than 1% of their earnings. You can see where that has gone.

Such has been the case with EVERY SINGLE ENTITLEMENT OR SOCIAL PROGRAM the federal government has ever become involved in.

And as a small business owner, now out of business primarily because of the passage of Obamacare, I can assure you that the Obama administration has had a devastating effect on small business and continues to do so.

 

[Flopper]

What government did that was so hostile to business was to pass a healthcare overhaul that literally threatened to sink the national treasury and impose such onerous requirements on business that they would be unable to compete anywhere.

What government did that was so hostile to business was to threaten to allow the Bush tax reform to expire and thus increase taxes drastically on the very Americans who make things, provide services, expand, capitalize, and create jobs

What government did that was so hostile to business was to order a moratorium on new oil production in the Gulf and various other places that not only was devastating to the economies of those areas, but was certain to increase costs for all processes dependent on petroleum and that is a LOT of processes.

That was on top of a threatened cap and trade bill favored by the Congressional leadership and the President that would create more negative pressure on U.S. business than any other and further compromise its competitiveness on a world market.

A whole new way of thinking about government is for government to create the best possible business climate for U.S. commerce and industry and then get out of the way and let Americans do their thing. They did it better than anybody in the world until government began inserting itself negatively into the process.

(The stock market can reflect the health of U.S. commerce and industry and right now you don't see all that must investment in U.S. commercie and industry. My own investments include some U.S. based operations but are mostly in a whole lot of stuff dependent on economic health overseas. When U.S. business is allowed to recover, I will be moving most of my investment back to domestic products. People invest in the market when they have noplace else to go with their money.)

I don't agree with many of your points but I don't have the time to address all of them. Business pays far more attention to government actions than political rhetoric. On balance the Obama administration effect on business has been more positive than negative.

As far as healthcare cost, the latest estimates from the CBO, are that the healthcare law will reduce the deficit by $123 billion for the time frame 2010-2019. The CBO has also estimated premiums will rise 10% due to the new law. Of course there are loads of articles on the net, all partisan that project huge deficits and skyrocketing premiums. Businesses looking at expansion have far more important considerations than how much premiums will rise or what may or may not happen with the deficit.

The economy is expanding. The GDP is growing. The consensus of economist expect greater growth in 2011 than 2010.

You do understand that the CBO is REQUIRED to use the numbers provided to it by the Administation yes? Even CBO has acknowledged that those numbers do not include all the components that will affect the economy. And independent analysis shows very different numbers than what the CBO came up with. The CBO also initially estimated Medicare would cost a maximum of $78 billion. It has eclipsed that by many hundreds of percent.

Once it was promised that social security would never cost Americans more than 1% of their earnings. You can see where that has gone.

Such has been the case with EVERY SINGLE ENTITLEMENT OR SOCIAL PROGRAM the federal government has ever become involved in.

And as a small business owner, now out of business primarily because of the passage of Obamacare, I can assure you that the Obama administration has had a devastating effect on small business and continues to do so.

Wrong. The information the CBO used to estimate the cost impact of the healthcare bill came from the Joint Committee on Taxation, another non-partisan committee of Congress.

Prior to passage of the bill to Repeal the Healthcare law, Congress requested the CBO to cost out the bill. The Republicans jump the gun voting to repeal before the CBO had scored the bill. According to CBS News, the CBO has now estimated that repealing the law will cost $230 billion over the next 10 years. Boehner says he doesn't believe it. If I were Boehner, I would say the same thing.

I seriously doubt that the CBO gave the initial estimate on the maximum cost of Medicare. Medicare became law in 1965. The CBO was not created until 1974.

Cost of Repealing Health Care Reform Estimated at $230 Billion Over 10 Years - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Congressional Budget Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Overview

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm no buying that Flopper. There is no independent group that did its own research abnd analysis that was allowed any input into that process. Those independent groups such as Heritage and Cato and the Hoover Institute that did do their own research and analysis and came up with much different numbers were all blown off as rightwing propaganda machines.

And since passage, so much of the bill was incomplete and subject to manipulation by the bureaucracies that will write the rules and regs for it, and so much was jury rigged and compromised for various special interest groups, the initial numbers put out there cannot possibly be reconciled as time passes. Personally I think most were manufactured out of thin air anyway.

The history can't be blown off. The federal government has yet to initiate any funded initiative of any kind, much less any entitlement program, that did not cost much more than its advertising or that has produced any of the promised savings.

To pretend that Obamacare will somehow be different requires more hutzpah or naivete than I can accept as reasonable.

The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary “score” says the health care overhaul will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years, saving $138 billion over that time. But the CBO must assess legislation as written, rather than whether it will actually be carried out. Or, as the Economist put it, “The CBO is required to pretend to believe many impossible things before breakfast.”

1. Medicare cuts

The Senate health care bill relied heavily on unprecedented cuts in Medicare spending increases. If implemented, this would have a huge impact on seniors’ care. But Congress has always balked at Medicare cuts. (See No. 3).

2. Delayed start

To make the budget math work, Democrats plan on delaying the start of subsidies and other costly provisions for several years. (The bill spends just $17 billion through 2013). The true 10-year cost is far higher.

3. The “doc fix” is excluded

The Sustainable Growth Rate imposes automatic cuts in Medicare payment rates to doctors.

For several years, fearing a revolt by doctors — and seniors — Congress has suspended those cuts. The original draft of the House health care bill included a permanent “doc fix.” But that ballooned deficits, so Democrats dropped it, even though everyone knows Congress isn’t going to slash doctors’ rates. The CBO has estimated a “doc fix” would cost $247 billion over 10 years.

4. Student loans are included

Doctors’ payments are excluded from the health bill, but major student loan program changes are included? Yep. The reconciliation bill will end student loan subsidies to lenders. The CBO says this will save $19.4 billion over the first decade, accounting for virtually all of the $19.8 billion in deficit reduction from the health care reconciliation bill. Reconciliation bills must cut the deficit by at least $1 billion. So, without the non-health care items, the health care reconciliation bill would not pass muster.

5. It’s a CLASS act

In the Senate health bill, a new, voluntary long-term care insurance program called CLASS accounted for some $72 billion of the deficit reduction. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program is supposed to be deficit-neutral long-term. But Democrats are counting the upfront premium surplus in the short term and ignoring the significant operating deficits after 2029. Update: Democrats also are counting on projected additional Social Security revenues from payroll taxes on higher wages in lieu of lower health benefits. Again, those benefits have to be paid out.

But wait, there’s more! Let’s assume that the cost savings materialize as planned. It still makes the long-term fiscal outlook worse. Why? Democrats are using up a lot of tax hikes, spending cuts and upfront payments just to get barely better than deficit-neutral. That leaves future lawmakers less scope to bring the nation’s finances into order.

Five Reasons The CBO Figures Are Phony

 

[JamesMorrison]

The much vaunted CBO has re-scored Obamacare without the progressive smoke and mirrors and, taking into account Rep. Ryan’s objections, they found that Obamacare simply increases the deficit by 260 Bn USD.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : CBO Confirms That Without Accounting Gimmicks, Obamacare Adds to Deficits

If we agree that the CBO is politically neutral and just scores bills as it is told, what does this tell us about this process? Wouldn’t we be better asking the CBO to use all that “science and truth and logical argument” that President Obama so counseled?

One of the best measures of where the economy is going is the stock market. Last year it was up nearly 13%. Unlike forecast by economist and opinions of the Chamber of Commerce, the market is telling us that the consensus of investors believe the economy will improve and they are backing it up with their money not their mouth. It is not a question of will the economy improve but how fast. Last year at this time about half the economists were expecting a double dip in the economy something you don't hear much about today. Two years ago, a lot of economists were predicting an economic disaster worst than the great depression.

Ignore the political noise and ask yourself, what has the government done that was so hostile to business over the last two years. Was the job creation bill that made over 700 billion dollars available to businesses to expand and create jobs a hostile act? Was bailing out half the major banks in the country that were on the verge of failure a hostile act? Was agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts hostile to business? Were new tax incentives for small business hostile to business? Was passing a healthcare bill that would give the insurance industry 35 million new customers hostile to business?

Well, I guess we could bandy back and forth as to this metric or that or how much the administration put us into debt by bailing out public sector unions, the UAW, or big banks, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating; so, there are questions that must be answered regarding the results of Obama’s ‘pro-business actions’ that make up your argument. Let us, indeed, “ignore the political noise” and ask:

Why is unemployment, still, almost 10% and underemployment almost twice that?
Why does business have a record 1.5 Trillion USD just sitting in the bank doing absolutely nothing?
Why is this recovery the longest and slowest?

Before we answer these questions we must also recognize that the majority of jobs in the economy are produced by small businesses. Are we to believe that both large and small businesses, perhaps with the aegis of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are part and parcel of a conspiracy to make President Obama look bad…at any cost or loss of profit? If the business climate emanating from this administration is not, at least, partly to blame what explains the results (or lack thereof) suggested by the above questions?

JM

 

[JamesMorrison]

Speaking of a new way to govern, somewhat.
Was just alerted to this a few days ago by PJTV:

GOOOH | Get Out of Our House: A non-partisan plan to elect citizen representatives!

A small, modest, but determined effort for a new way of government. But wait! Isn't that how those trouble making teabaggers started out?

I wonder what disparging remarks Olbermann will have to say about this patriotic effort? What? Oh, really? Well, in the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Nevermind".

JM

 

[Foxfyre]

My favorite guru, Walter Wiliams PhD, posted this on his Facebook page today. It is music to my ears because it is singing the song of a whole new way of looking at government which is basicly the original way of looking at government:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zOIFv8hvXA&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zOIFv8hvXA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

There are a number of issues in which I disagree with the Honorable Mr. Paul--Dr. Williams is much more a libertarian of his stripe than I am--but everything he is saying here definitely should become part of the debate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Speaking of a new way to govern, somewhat.
Was just alerted to this a few days ago by PJTV:

GOOOH | Get Out of Our House: A non-partisan plan to elect citizen representatives!

A small, modest, but determined effort for a new way of government. But wait! Isn't that how those trouble making teabaggers started out?

I wonder what disparging remarks Olbermann will have to say about this patriotic effort? What? Oh, really? Well, in the immortal words of Emily Litella: "Nevermind".

JM

Interesting James though I shudder to think what the trolls will do with an acronym like GOOOH. \

I have always resisted strict term limits requirements because I am such a strong believer in the lessons of experience. If we should have an election at the same time as certain kinds of national crisis or during a war or impending war, it could be unfortunate that those with the greatest experience and expertise might be forced out re term limits. And I think an organization like GOOOH also has to be sure it thinks through any unintended negative consequences along with its excellent motives.