Obamanomics: Bad for the economy...

[BJean 16]

Thanks Beth, that was much easier to read.

And luluc, I agree with what you said!

Several times I have made reference to the fact that greed in American corporations has been a huge problem and has caused what has become nearly catastrophic for our economy. No government oversight (because we all want a simple capitalist way of life here) has allowed the greed to run rampant and trample on the rights of workers and has put many people out on the streets, jobless.

It is because of this kind of greed and disregard for their employees and investors that it has become necessary for someone, or some agency, to intervene and hopefully turn things around so that we can get back to a healthy economy and people can keep their jobs without the constant fear of layoffs.

I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know if this intervention (which I believe is temporary!) is the answer. I do know this... Obama has been willing to step up to the plate and give it the ole college try. He is sure taking his lumps for it and he may wind up being wrong. But his is the only plan that is viable that has been put forth.

Just allowing these companies to fix themselves with no intervention, wasn't working. Things were just continuing to get worse every day. I believe that the jury is still out and I also believe that raising cain and accusing Obama of being a socialist is fruitless.

I asked you once when your taxes have been raised since Obama took office and you ignored my question. I also asked on other threads when he said he wanted to take away people's guns. And when has he said that he doesn't want the border laws enforced? Much of what people (not necessarily you) are yelling about just isn't what's on the agenda right now - they just ain't happening.

[BJean 16]

Oh I almost forgot to ask - and this is a serious question because I do not have the answer - how many businesses has Obama snatched up? How many corporate CEOs has he fired?

[BJean 16]

You've definied facism as: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

In my humble opinion, Bush may not have "forcibly" supressed opposition, but he did supress opposition and I believe that it can be proven that he did all of those things except practice racism and actually I guess he actively did that too. His response to Katrina was certainly questionable.

The Patriot Act, Quantanamo Bay and the bombing of Iraq are all examples of Bush gone wrong. The way he handled the oil companies, aggressively emphasized nationalism by subsidizing them, etc., are all examples of things we should have questioned, should have been up in arms over.

The fact that they said that anyone who opposed the war was not a patriot was just one of the things that he did to oppress people. I could go on but this has turned into a darned book again. Sorry!

[pattygreen 5]

After WWI Italy was left with a war debt that crippled the nation's economy. When Mussolini came on the scene in 1922 promising economic recovery, the italians gladly accepted his promises. Much like socialism, fascism meant government control of most political, economic,cultural, religious and social activities. It allowed for some private enterprise but maintained heavy regulation over those businesses that were privately owned.

Germany also suffered great economic hardship, and the depression made it worse. Hitler intently watched Mussolini rise to power and in 1933 the Nazi party came to power promising the Germans government job programs and other economic relief. They began to dominate other areas of life after they took control of businesses. Hitler used fear and distrust that he had created to turn Germans against their jewish neighbors, many of whom owned profitable businesses. He accused Jewish business owners of greed and selfishness to seize their property in the name of the German government. Before long, Nazis controlled many businesses and factories in Germany and heavily regulated those allowed to remain in private hands. As a socialist, Hitler believed that the gov. should own the Nations industries and take responsibility for its people. His creation of a socialist state gave him the power he needed to become the absolute dictator of Germany. By EMBRACING socialism, the people lost their freedoms to a tyrannical dictator. I said all this to say this....If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[BJean 16]

Thanks for the history lesson patty. It sounds like you're telling us that President Obama is reading the Mussolini/Hitler book on governing and is following in their foot steps. Is that right? Give him an inch and he'll turn us into a communist country, eh? We're only one step away from losing all our freedoms and having a tyrannical dictator who gasses anyone he doesn't like, right?

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic? Nobody is taking away your right to vote, your right to voice your opinions, in fact any of your freedoms. If you disagree I would appreciate it if you would list the things that this President has taken away from you. Tell us how he's going around Congress to make laws that govern us. And most importantly, please tell us where you're getting the information that he's taken or taking these things away from you.

[pattygreen 5]

All we need to do is take a look at history to see how things could turn out if you allow it. Socialism doesn't happen over night. It very slowly creeps up on you. First, you form social security, the people accept it cause it sounds like a good plan, then while the people aren't looking the gov. steals the money you paid in to support other social programs they began, but don't have the money to pay for them. Then they take over the banking industry, then they provide health care for the nation. Whenever the government starts a large social program, they start out with say 10 men (That they have to pay 3 or 4X the regular Joes salary, I might add) and provide benefits and pensions for them. Then those 10 men have to hire others to over see the project and things get bigger, so those 10 hired men have a staff as well, and so on and so on. Before you know it, what could have cost $100. without the governments help now costs $1000. Cause you have soooo many government employees to pay. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of money.

[pattygreen 5]

We're not one step away from losing all our freedoms, but we're getting there slowly. little by little. If the people allow the government to give them everything under the guise of 'helping the needy', the people will not want to 'work' for their livelyhood. Why should they?

Once a government starts promising economic relief to the people, and taking control of large businesses, that will lead to control and domination of other areas of life for the people. I believe the gov. needs to stick to protecting the people from physical harm, (military, police, emergency, etc.) and stay out of free enterprise. The people have and always will be able to care for themselves. And if they don't have the government to fall back on financially, they will have to do something to better themselves. Because the gov. money is the hard working peoples money, not the freeloaders money. Don't get me wrong, I give my finances to many worthy causes to help those who struggle and are poor, but I refuse to be 'forced' to do it.

[BethFromVA 5]

while directed @bjean, can i answer?..LOL

personally, i'm not a fan of the business handlings - that's is what a companies board is for, to handle mis-managment/reckless business practices/loss of profits - etc. i DO think that if your going to accept funds to prevent the business from folding - there should be a set of conditions known up front of what's expected. meaning, crap didn't work - i expect a shake up, "board" i'm holding you accountable for a turnaround ... the firings took it too far.

my old CEO, started collecting $1.00 in annual salary to keep employees working (he had millions upon millions) - that was 3 yrs ago & he still keeps that dollar salary. i think many of the companies seeking bailout funds could take a lesson.

i see both sides of this coin. i worked in high tech sales, and i had a contract that said every qtr, my bonus was XXXX in addition to my commissions. i expected that to be fulfilled, like others in that same spot now.....

I honestly see WHY some people may think this is a great idea because I can't deny the greed and mismanagement that has gone on. But I guess I can't see two wrongs making a right. Once the government starts bailing companies out, they then have a "right" to dictate how it's run, who works there, what they make, etc. That is NEVER a good thing.

I was alarmed to read the other day how this administration was not allowing a particular bank to deny taking bailout money. The article is here in the Wall Street Journal:

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

That becomes very alarming to me. Again, I don't swear to know the answer to this mess, other than allowing the market to correct itself. Some say we need to do SOMEthing, but I don't think this is the way to do it. Once the government starts owning private entities, it's a very short road to tyranny from there.

[BethFromVA 5]

Thanks Beth, that was much easier to read.

And luluc, I agree with what you said!

Several times I have made reference to the fact that greed in American corporations has been a huge problem and has caused what has become nearly catastrophic for our economy. No government oversight (because we all want a simple capitalist way of life here) has allowed the greed to run rampant and trample on the rights of workers and has put many people out on the streets, jobless.

It is because of this kind of greed and disregard for their employees and investors that it has become necessary for someone, or some agency, to intervene and hopefully turn things around so that we can get back to a healthy economy and people can keep their jobs without the constant fear of layoffs.

I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know if this intervention (which I believe is temporary!) is the answer. I do know this... Obama has been willing to step up to the plate and give it the ole college try. He is sure taking his lumps for it and he may wind up being wrong. But his is the only plan that is viable that has been put forth.

Just allowing these companies to fix themselves with no intervention, wasn't working. Things were just continuing to get worse every day. I believe that the jury is still out and I also believe that raising cain and accusing Obama of being a socialist is fruitless.

I asked you once when your taxes have been raised since Obama took office and you ignored my question. I also asked on other threads when he said he wanted to take away people's guns. And when has he said that he doesn't want the border laws enforced? Much of what people (not necessarily you) are yelling about just isn't what's on the agenda right now - they just ain't happening.

I guess the first thing that jumps out at me is this: Nothing the government takes over is ever temporary. They never ever give up the power they wrest away from the people. Also, they never make anything they take over better. I've asked many times to name one, but I haven't seen anybody mention anything. And not just here -- other boards as well. Can you name one?

I am not blind to the fact that things were going badly, but they had just begun. I didn't consider it to a point where it was so dire that the government just HAD to jump in. Bush started this bailout crap, and Obama ran with it. Maybe if left to their own devices, these companies would have realized that they need to restructure or fail. Now, they have OUR money, are not (in many cases) restructruing, and the same people who ran these companies into the ground would not be walking away with million-dollar bonuses for a "job well done."

Like Lulu, I see both sides of the coin. I am in no way saying that what these execs were doing was okay. I don't, however, feel what is happening now is the answer. And by the time we realize it's all effed up, it'll be too late -- we'll be untold trillions of dollars in debt, the government will be dictating who works and for how much, and they will fail miserably at running business like they fail at running schools, social security, and the government, to name a few.

Many of us already know why the border is not an issue ANY of these guys from both sides want to tackle. It's about the almighty vote, pure and simple.

As for the guns issue, I'm still on the fence on that, but I don't trust him, no. Actually, to be fair, I don't trust the LEFT in office on this issue. I plan on stocking up on what I can before I no longer can, because I truly believe that day will come on somebody's watch... maybe his, maybe somebody else's.

I went further than I anticipated, but I'm trying to keep it short and readable. I guess my biggest issue I'll address again: What has the government ever run that it did it better, cheaper, and with excellent results?

[BethFromVA 5]

Oh I almost forgot to ask - and this is a serious question because I do not have the answer - how many businesses has Obama snatched up? How many corporate CEOs has he fired?

That is a good question since all we've really heard about is GM, AIG, and a bunch of banks. As far as I know, he's only fired the GM guy. However, we are also talking less than 100 days in office, so I'm sure that will change...

[BethFromVA 5]

You've definied facism as: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

In my humble opinion, Bush may not have "forcibly" supressed opposition, but he did supress opposition and I believe that it can be proven that he did all of those things except practice racism and actually I guess he actively did that too. His response to Katrina was certainly questionable.

The Patriot Act, Quantanamo Bay and the bombing of Iraq are all examples of Bush gone wrong. The way he handled the oil companies, aggressively emphasized nationalism by subsidizing them, etc., are all examples of things we should have questioned, should have been up in arms over.

The fact that they said that anyone who opposed the war was not a patriot was just one of the things that he did to oppress people. I could go on but this has turned into a darned book again. Sorry!

Okay, good points. Let's look at this:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power -- I see Obama, taking over free trade companies, as an example of this...

forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism -- as in the Fairness Doctrine, perhaps? Though in fairness, he claims he is not for that, but the left in office are. However, he certainly made it a point during the election to go after those he felt were not portraying him in a good light. Not lying about him, mind you, but not puffing him up, either...

regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. -- that's beginning to happen now. These things never happen immediately or overnight. It takes time to get the people used to the squeeze...

and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism -- The definition I find for nationalism is thus:

1.national spirit or aspirations.

2.devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.

3.excessive patriotism; chauvinism.

4.the desire for national advancement or independence.

5.the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

6.an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.

7.a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

What I see doesn't exactly fit in any of those definitions except if you look at it like this: The "good of the nation" over "the good of the person." It's "good for the nation to take from the haves and give to the have-nots," versus "it's selfish to work hard for yourself and your family and not want to give it to others." That is how I view the use of nationalism in this case...

and often racism -- Though I can't place the blame solely on him, I can't even tell you how often I heard that if you were against Obama, you were automatically labeled a racist. Some could never imagine that many of us don't like him for reasons that have nothing to do with race at all.

So true, it could be that he is skipping the socialist slant for one of fascism.

[ColoradoChick 33]

There seems to be some confusion as to what a corporation is designed to accomplish. It is not in business to protect the rights of employees. A corporation can choose to be "socially responsible" but it does not have a legal obligation other than to follow the law that have are currently in place. A corporation is an immortal capital acquisition vehicle designed to capture and grow capital and insulate it from estate taxes and dissolution through death. It has all the attributes of a living person and few of the drawbacks. It survives and grows through its management and production/service activities, but it's main purpose is the acquisition of capital, or growth, just like any other living creature. What it does, who does it, and how it's done are factors in achieving that purpose.

The bailouts do not seem to be working so far as the credit markets remain firmly frozen. Time will tell weather Obama is correct. I personally think that these businesses should be allowed to enter bankruptcy. We have a huge legal system currently in place to handle large bankruptsy matters.

This problem began because of government - government has not historically proven to be good at running well...anything. I have no confidence that govenment is the answer to a problem that they created with the mortgage mess - which caused the credit freeze which trickled to the automobile industry and on and on and on.

That is just my opionion - not worth much - just an opinion.

[BethFromVA 5]

Thanks for the history lesson patty. It sounds like you're telling us that President Obama is reading the Mussolini/Hitler book on governing and is following in their foot steps. Is that right? Give him an inch and he'll turn us into a communist country, eh? We're only one step away from losing all our freedoms and having a tyrannical dictator who gasses anyone he doesn't like, right?

Don't you think you're being a tad melodramatic? Nobody is taking away your right to vote, your right to voice your opinions, in fact any of your freedoms. If you disagree I would appreciate it if you would list the things that this President has taken away from you. Tell us how he's going around Congress to make laws that govern us. And most importantly, please tell us where you're getting the information that he's taken or taking these things away from you.

BJean, we may not be losing these things YET, but the writing is certainly on the wall. Again, maybe via him, maybe not -- but one can most certainly see the path we are taking.

Tell me this: Do we have as many freedoms today as we did 75 or even 50 years ago? I say we do not. Government is more involved in our lives than ever, dictating how much Water our toilets hold, working hard at steering what types of vehicles we drive (great thing GM is now owned by Uncle Sam, eh?), and working now to dictate how much power we use in our homes. They tax us coming and going and regulate nearly everything that touches our lives. You don't see the freedoms we don't have because they've been chipping away at them slowly. If even 10 years ago they hit us up all at once with the regulations we have now 10 years later, they'd have a revolution on their hands.

I call this the boiling frog theory: It is a fact that if you try to throw a frog into boiling water, he will be able to jump free of it as soon as his feet hit the water. However, if you place a frog in lukewarm water and turn the heat up under him, he will eventually boil to death, unaware of what is happening to him.

What Patty says is factually true, and though we are not in that position YET, we are most certainly working our way that direction. Today it's GM and AIG and untold banks. Innumerable other companies have their hands out for money, which then allows the government to have an ownership stake in it if not take it over outright, depending on what type of business it is and whether the government feels they can further their cause by maintaining control.

I know you said previously (if I remember correctly) that you have no problem with government ownership or running of companies. However, I am more afraid of them owning people's livelihoods than I ever have been greedy CEOs. Because frankly, the only thing scarier than a greedy CEO is a greedy political representative (an oxymoron, that).

[BethFromVA 5]

There seems to be some confusion as to what a corporation is designed to accomplish. It is not in business to protect the rights of employees. A corporation can choose to be "socially responsible" but it does not have a legal obligation other than to follow the law that have are currently in place. A corporation is an immortal capital acquisition vehicle designed to capture and grow capital and insulate it from estate taxes and dissolution through death. It has all the attributes of a living person and few of the drawbacks. It survives and grows through its management and production/service activities, but it's main purpose is the acquisition of capital, or growth, just like any other living creature. What it does, who does it, and how it's done are factors in achieving that purpose.

The bailouts do not seem to be working so far as the credit markets remain firmly frozen. Time will tell weather Obama is correct. I personally think that these businesses should be allowed to enter bankruptcy. We have a huge legal system currently in place to handle large bankruptsy matters.

This problem began because of government - government has not historically proven to be good at running well...anything. I have no confidence that govenment is the answer to a problem that they created with the mortgage mess - which caused the credit freeze which trickled to the automobile industry and on and on and on.

That is just my opionion - not worth much - just an opinion.

See, I knew somebody with much better money smarts would be able to sort out what's what!

[luluc 6]

I honestly see WHY some people may think this is a great idea because I can't deny the greed and mismanagement that has gone on. But I guess I can't see two wrongs making a right. Once the government starts bailing companies out, they then have a "right" to dictate how it's run, who works there, what they make, etc. That is NEVER a good thing..

don't disagree , then turn down the money - fold....enter bankruptcy & add more to the unemployment line.

i enjoyed cc's response - i've found however that the socially responsible companies such as the one DH and i worked for are still profitable, no layoffs, and while my stock price sucks compared to '99 or '00 it's been pretty stable.