Obama Adminstration Meta Discussion
Options
Replies
-
Agreed. Which makes me wonder why you brought it up.
The point was not brought up to make an issue of the coal industry but to illustrate how the President's philosophy is detrimental to America.0 -
There is more to America than the coal industry.0
-
Treetop,
I presume you remember well the Reagan administration and the recession of the early 80's. It is quite apparent that Reagan's vision of America was vastly different to that of President Obama's. I was just a child during the Reagan administration so I am genuinely interested in what your personal experience was during that time and if you thought Reagan's policies were at all responsible for the growth experienced late in his first term. Do you feel Reaganomics was legitimate or were there other influences present at the time that led to America's extraordinary growth during his tenure as President?0 -
Reagan's policies were definitely responsible for extraordinary growth--in the national debt.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
As far as growth of the over-all economy, his presidency was very slightly above average for the post-war period:Real GDP advanced at an annualized rate of 5.2% during the Kennedy years, 5.1% during the Johnson years, and 3.6% when the Clinton administration was in power. GDP rose 3.5% per annum in the Reagan years despite a severe recession in 1981-2. Growth averaged a respectable 3.2% per annum when the Carter administration governed — and yes, some people no doubt were better off in 1980 than 1976 — and the Nixon years experienced growth of 3.0% per annum. In none of these presidential periods was growth substantially less than the 3.4% average pace for the whole second half of the 20th century.
http://currencythoughts.com/2008/09/26/us-gdp-growth-under-different-presidencies/
But the main problem with Reagan's policies was the class warfare. Before Reagan, all Americans shared in the growth in GDP. After Reagan, the playing field was tilted toward the rich and the income of middle-class Americans stagnated. Productivity growth benefited only the rich and never trickled down to you and me.
The irony is of course that hogging the benefits of society hurts the rich as well. The businesses they own depend on customers and if their customers don't have money to buy, sales and profits lag. That's what Obama was trying to tell Joe the Plumper, that he wanted to implement policies that would make Joe's customers wealthier, which would make them better able to afford Joe's plumbing services. It wasn't a question of robbing Joe to pay Jim. It was a question of Joe benefiting if Jim had more money.
In any case, I don't see Romney as the resurrection of Reagan. If nothing else, Reagan had a degree of realism that modern Republicans lack. He raised taxes when he believed it necessary, something that is anathema to today's Republican party, all of whom dread breaking Grover Norquist's pledge.But to combat a rising deficit and debt burden, Reagan also approved increased taxes.
In 1982, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by $3.3 billion.
In 1983, Reagan signed off on legislation to raise payroll taxes and tax Social Security benefits for some higher earners.
In 1984, the Deficit Reduction Act included increases in taxes on estates and distilled spirits and ended some business tax breaks, to the tune of $18 billion per year.
In 1985, Reagan signed legislation making permanent a 16-cent federal excise tax on a pack of cigarettes, then worth about $2.4 billion a year.
In 1986, the Tax Reform Act lowered the top income tax bracket from 50 percent to 28 percent. To pay for the reductions, however, the legislation closed a number of tax loopholes.
In 1987, Reagan signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act that extended the telephone excise tax and eliminated a real estate tax deduction loophole.
So it’s accurate to say Reagan increased levies during five years of his administration, but there’s a caveat: The overall tax burden on businesses and individuals went down during his presidency.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2012/jun/25/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-reagan-raised-taxes-during/
All of which is a rambling answer to your question, I hope. What it comes down to for me is a question of who is better for the economy: A Republican in the mold of George W. Bush or a Democrat in the mold of Bill Clinton? In my mind, there is no contest.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.0
-
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?0 -
I see that Lour441 has responded to this point, but I just can let it pass since it is at the heart of the latest campaign of lies by the Romney campaign:Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton.
This is simply false. Some states have asked for greater flexibility in how they implement the work requirements, including Republican states like Utah and including Massachusetts when Romney was governor. The Obama administration is granting that greater flexibility, but only if the state programs still achieve measurable success in getting welfare recipients into work.A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted “a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The plan does neither of those things.
* Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.
* And it won’t “gut” the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still won’t be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not.
Romney’s ad also distorts the facts when it says that under President Obama’s plan “you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job.” The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.
Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked. . .
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
Don't make the mistake of believing things the Romney campaign tells you, A2O.0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.0 -
What do you expect from a felon? :huh:Don't make the mistake of believing things the Romney campaign tells you, A2O.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Obama didn't really drop the federal work requirement for welfare. His administration will allow states a waiver if they ask for it. I have argued both sides depending on my mood.
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
I think that is why you can argue it either way.
If the state requests a waiver and receives it and then removes the work requirement wouldn't it be the state that removed the work requirement with the Obama administration's blessing?0 -
Speaking of waivers...
This one seems a little self serving to the Obama Administration.
http://news.investors.com/article/620795/201208021848/skip-pink-slips-defense-contractors-told.htm?p=full0 -
From the Department of Health and Human Service's waiver policy:As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
They are not "dropping the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton." Simply not true. Romney may or not have committed a felony by lying on SEC filings, but he is definitely lying about the welfare work requirements.0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?
I'm afraid I don't follow. I assume you were using semantics as means of suggesting that the distinction between the two presented options is not really all that important. I disagreed and gave a counter example to highlight that.
Your question around my health seems irrelevant, but to answer it: I'm doing ok. There's only so much I can do about seasonal allergies. Thank you for asking, though.0 -
But I'm not done rambling. You can't compare the recession of the early 1980s to that of 2008/2009. The early 80s recession of induced by the Federal Reserve's decision to break inflation by raising interest rates. That's an easy recession to end: The Federal Reserve just lowers interest rates. The 2008/2009 recession was much more serious. It was brought on by financial crisis that resulted in a mass panic and rush to safety. Everyone wanted to hold their assets in cash and cash equivalents, which drove interest rates to zero, taking away the Federal Reserve's primary tool. They couldn't lower interest rates because rates were already near zero. That's a much harder problem to solve, and historically financial-crisis recessions are much flatter at the bottom than a V-shaped interest-rate induced recession like we had in the early 80s.
I appreciate your perspective.
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
Treetop,
Aside from the welfare issue, what are your thoughts on the above?0 -
Doesn't the option make the "requirement" moot then? I guess its symantics but the end result is the legislation has been undermined, no?
Semantics? I guess so, in the same way that giving someone the option to volunteer for the military is semantically different than drafting them.
Do you feel better now?
I'm afraid I don't follow. I assume you were using semantics as means of suggesting that the distinction between the two presented options is not really all that important. I disagreed and gave a counter example to highlight that.
Your question around my health seems irrelevant, but to answer it: I'm doing ok. There's only so much I can do about seasonal allergies. Thank you for asking, though.
Anytime.0 -
From Lour's "Investors.com" link:Labor Dept. Waives 60-Day Notice To Help Obama Win
Posted 08/02/2012 06:48 PM ET
Politics: An administration that doesn't want layoff notices required by law going out days before the November election is telling defense contractors they don't have to send them for the cuts required by sequestration. . .
Robert Stevens, chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin, told lawmakers that his company alone is looking at laying off roughly 10,000 employees from its 120,000 workforce. . . .
No doubt that sounds self-serving. But then, this is the type of threat they were responding to:Lockheed Martin CEO Bob Stevens pressed the issue last month when he threatened to issue layoff notices to all 123,000 of his employees on the Friday before the election due to a provision in U.S. labor law requiring large employers to notify employees 60 days in advance of layoffs caused by a foreseeable event.
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/241473-gop-labor-department-hiding-big-job-losses
If the sequestration happens, Lockheed will probably have to lay off 10,000 workers, but Stevens planned to send lay-off notices to ten time that number.
So yes perhaps the Dept of Labor was playing politics . . . but they are hardly alone.0 -
It is said that the majority of employment is done by small business in America. What role, if any, do you feel healthcare and its increase cost to employers has played in inhibiting job growth? If you feel it has, would you say it was prudent for the President to have embarked on universal healthcare during a time of such fiscal uncertainty?
The ACA employer mandate only applies to companies that employ more than 50 workers, so it's impact on truly small businesses will be minimal in the short run. I believe (or at least hope) that in the long run, the cost control provisions on the ACA will "bend the curve," and reduce the growth rate of healthcare. So in the long run, it will help small business and lead to a less uncertain environment on the issue. It will also reduce the number of people who only stick at a job to maintain continuity of coverage, unleashing the vaunted entrepreneurial spirit of the American people!
Since the exponential growth of healthcare costs is the main reason for fiscal uncertainty, yes, I think Obama was completely justified to follow through on what was arguably the main issue of his 2008 campaign. I'd have been sorely disappointed if he didn't.Also, regarding Clinton. You feel Obama is in the mold of Clinton? I would like to know how so since Clinton triangulated once he lost Congress. Obama has doubled down on his agenda and has not mirrored Clinton's ability to come to center evidenced by his dropping of the federal work requirement, for Welfare, that was enacted by Clinton. Also, Clinton's spending record, I would even argue, was better than Bush's in that he was able to balance the budget. Obama, knowing he had a severe recession to deal with, has not shown any inclination to cut spending.
A recession is the wrong time to cut spending. The time to cut spending was the boom years that Bush frittered away with tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and two unjustified wars.0
