American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Ricardo]But a pretty compelling case can be made, that in regard to US health care, the current private sector model is hardly the best of all possible alternatives. [/QUOTE]Perhaps so. But, again, I think that misses the point a bit. The issue is not whether the current system is flawless. It's not really even whether there are better systems. It is whether what is being proposed would be [b]better.[/b] I realize that there is no concrete Obama plan, since nothing's been sent to his desk. But, even the vague details that do exist have turned off a substantial portion of the population. If you asked the same people in the poll whether they favor Universal Coverage where the government runs a substantial chunk and regulates extensively the rest, I bet the skyrocketing numbers would immediately fall substantially. That's the issue, in my opinion: The public doesn't want the government so involved. To the extent details exist about what Obama wants to accomplish, it's pretty clear the government would be heavily involved and (I think) equally apparent that this prospect is very offensive to a substantial portion of the population. I wouldn't advocate this, but I would submit that a proposal that simply lets government raise extra taxes (something it is good at) but keeps the government out of the actual provision of insurance, would fare much, much better than the current framework. Again, I wouldn't be in favor of that, but it would be an easier plan to sell.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Unfortunately, recent history has taught us a few lessons about letting business self-regulate. (To paraphrase an old slogan – "Are your equity holdings better off today than they were four years ago?") And if government can't be trusted to do its job, what's the alternative? Churchill might say "government regulation is the worst way to curb dangerous corporate practices, except all others."[/QUOTE]I don't mean to nitpick, but I would take issue with this, as well. At least in terms of what most folks contend led to the current economic malaise -- the housing sector and the collateralized debt obligations that became so intertwined in all facets of the capital markets -- the blame for this really can be traced directly back to the government. Starting with the GI Bill in the 50s, HUD and various other government-sponsored programs to promote home ownership, right up to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and the artificially low interest rates at the beginning of this decade. The markets just responded to the perverse incentives fostered by government regulation -- especially in the late 90s through the first half of this decade.

Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame equally for this. They each altered the economics and the fundamental risk side of the equation that traditionally has been associated with extending loans. The "unregulated" companies (which we both know don't exist) simply responded to the false incentives initially created by government programs. To be sure, they had profit as their central motive. But, I hear far too many folks citing this as somehow "evil" or "wrong." Everyone likes social responsibility when it is someone else that has to be responsible.

I won't argue that regulation has no place in society. I would simply argue that regulations are to be avoided except where absolutely necessary. The housing industry -- and the laudable motives both parties may have had for promoting home ownership among different sectors of the population -- show that even the most well-intentioned legislation and social programs can have some pretty nasty consequences.

I know you weren't alluding exclusively to the housing sector, but many blame it for the current economic mess, and it's at least partly (if not mainly) to blame.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]The tax burdens for high income people that Obama has suggested are far less onerous than what was in place during the go-go years of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and no more onerous than what was in place under Reagan and Clinton. Where in the world does all the hyperbole on this come from? Bet you can guess.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. But most of the 50s, 60s and 70s were characterized by economic stagnation. It wasn't until regulation began to be curbed in the 80s -- culminating with the passage of the '86 tax act -- that our economy really exploded. This latter measure, while jarring and largely responsible for the bank failures of the late 80s and early 90s, set us on the path to several decades of largely unparalleled prosperity. Many will argue the point, especially those who currently attempt to dismantle or distort Reagan's legacy, but it was deregulation and reduction of tax that propelled the economy. I generally don't favor Democratic candidates, but I admired Bill Clinton mostly because he knew when [b]not[/b] to interfere. There was virtually no significant, landscape-altering legislation passed while he was in the White House, except perhaps welfare reform. He didn't unduly fetter the capital markets. He just got out of the way. Smart man, that one.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Bame Mata is right about bending statistics. The statistics used in debates over tax burdens become impossibly confusing because of the range and mix of taxes people pay from payroll to corporate to capital gains to estate to property to sales to local and state and the deductions and exemptions that are allowed in each category. Measuring what level of taxation that is confiscatory is like asking, "how's your wife." The answer is compared to what![/QUOTE]I can't bring myself to address directly Bame Mata's arguments. His / her points are too spurious to warrant comment, in my view. Regardless, however, the numbers I cited on tax burden are real and widely cited. They're incontestable and not lies or mere "statistics." If the best response is, "well, those folks make a lot of money," then I take it that there is no real response.

In truth, the statistics used on tax don't become confusing due to the myriad of layers of taxation that are imposed. It's just more obscene the more you look at it. At the end of each year, I take home less than 40% of what I earn after the entirety of the tax burden is factored into the equation. If you want to talk about exemptions, that's easy: They get taken away the more you make. Talk to any tax accountant about that. I don't mean to be flip about the issue. But, tax issues used to be far more complex when extensive tax shelters existed. In large part, that hasn't been true for two decades.

I got a kick recently when I read that one of the Oscar Mayer heirs is attempting to find 1,000 millionaires to stand up and agree that they should pay more taxes. Hmmmm. How much do you want to bet that he's a trust fund baby? He didn't start the company and, to the extent he pays any tax, it's likely at the 15% long term cap gains rate. If he's drawing any salary, he's a fool -- but then again, that is obvious from his quest. But, even as to this fool, I don't support raising his taxes.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]I wonder if an economy where the gap between the richest and everyone else keeps getting wider is the best model for sustained growth and social stability? [/QUOTE]Ricardo, I enjoy your posts. It's a bit like the reason I listen to NPR every day: I don't agree with much they have to say, but I do enjoy hearing the other side of the debate. You're obviously a sharp guy with a tremendous amount of experience and insight, and I can certainly appreciate that.

On this last quote referenced immediately above, I think this probably best represents the fundamental difference between our points of view. In my view, it is not any government's function to address the "gap between the richest and everyone else," as you put it.

Poverty is relative, but folks tend to think of it only in today's terms. The poorest folks in this country today have it far better than most of the richest folks a few hundred years ago. Flush toilets, electricity, movies, cell phones, video games, etc. Etc. -- and yes, even our poorest can afford these things with minimal effort. Even if you divorce the temporal component, our poorest have it far better off than most of the middle class in a country like Argentina (to the extent a middle class exists there) I don't feel sorry for the wealthy who lived 200 years ago because they didn't have our modern luxuries, and I don't believe our government has any responsibility to try to equalize the gap between our poor and Argentina's middle class. (We may provide aid to an array of countries around the world, but that doesn't make it our [I]responsiblity[/i] to do so.

Likewise, I just don't believe that it is government's role to try to narrow the gap between rich and poor in this country. Instead, government's responsibility should be to try to encourage everyone to generate more wealth to pay for the minimal interference that government inflicts on its people. If it can't do that, it should just get out of the way. That's a bit of an overstatement, but it's not far from my point of view.

At any rate, I enjoyed reading your point of view. I may not agree with it, but it's good to hear it articulated.

I kid you, of course, because we can guess who would be yelling at me "socialist". "nazi". "senior killer" (self-euthanasia I guess! And I'm sure I could scare someone up to call you a "capitalist pig!"

We obviously approach these issues from different philosophies and therefore we read history, statistical interpretation, measurements of beneficial outcomes, etc, differently.

I am an unabashed liberal - a lower middle class or upper lower class Boston Irish Catholic who grew up in JFK's congressional district and met him as an impressionable youngster - whose fairly deep study of economics and history has yet to uncover much countervailing evidence to shake his and my belief that government can and should play an ameliorating role in society.

I lived what I believed for a few decades. Working in government along side hundreds of dedicated, intelligent, honest and honorable people who shared my values. Whether we delivered well what we tried to can be debated.

I also worked a few decades in the private sector and saw how hard work, vision, creativity and the good old profit motive put bread on the table of workers (and caviar on the menu for the owners) I ran a $28 million dollar business with over 100 employees and know all the challenges of meeting a payroll and making a profit.

I admit it did gaul me when my successful efforts increased profits thereby adding millions to the net worth of some fairly despicable owners! That included Leona Helmsley - who made her money the old fashioned way - she sucked and fucked a horny old billionaire and inherited his $$$ when he passed!

What I did find in my years in both is that business is a lot less complicated than government. Getting to the bottom line has fewer moving parts than satisfying a myriad of constituencies wanting contradictory results. That is not a moral equivalency argument. Just a life experience observation.

I am certain you came to your beliefs in some similar fashion testing what you have seen against what you believe.

One other thing I learned first hand is that government is not inherently evil and private business is not pure and clean. Both are designed and operated by human beings and therefore equally susceptible to human-derived attributes such as stupidity, inefficiency, corruption, good works and high achievement.

My villains in the global meltdown range far and wide. At the base level is the intellectual conceit of economists who sold a theory of human behavior which on its face was demonstrably false. Ask any monger about negotiating with chicas and you will quickly dismiss the idea of self-correcting markets.

On a grander scale I think the debt habit is what killed the golden goose. The habit was fed by individuals. Corporations and governments who borrowed more than they should have to pay for things they didn't really need and ignored common sense. This profligacy was accelerated by new technologies that blinded everyone to predictable risks and allowed everyone to blithely ignore any and all warning signs, because the music was playing so loud all everyone wanted to do was dance.

My reading of history teaches me that an activist government under FDR came to the rescue of a devastated national economy and put in place a host of structural economic pillars that prevented the kind of excesses that caused the initial crisis. Those pillars worked pretty damn well for half a century and when we began to dismantle them we ended up back in the soup.

Now as we look ahead things are far more complex, as globalization and technological advances will make any efforts at systemic controls very difficult, even if we can figure out what to control and how to control it.

I also think we are living in a economic time when no one - no one - fully understands how the pieces fit together anymore. That is exciting - as it permits lots of experimentation and possible brakthroughs - but it is also very, very dangerous.

The "new normal" in the global economy that will emerge as the crisis recedes is going to disappoint many people around the globe and it will be interesting to see what new paradigm in economic beliefs wins the day.

These days - even after the Obama victory - I am concerned about the direction in the US. Assuredly for different reasons than you may be - or maybe not.

I fear the country is becoming "Argentinized" - to coin a word - meaning it will blame others for its receding good fortune, allow its institutions to wither, turn insular and inward, dumb itself down and continue to let false military adventures create an environment of fear and lose the good old American habit of getting on with making things better.

Jackson--explains that the posting personas of many on this board are very different than they are in person. Don't let any of the ranting and raving deter you.

I was really surprised about the ranting about Teddy Kennedy. REgardless of your point of view--this guy during the last 20 yaers of his life was a very effective senator--passing CHIPS--childern's health insurance when Bill Frist ran the Senate and W was in the White House--that is political know how and savey. History will remember him well and John McCain will also be remembered as an effective senator. This is even though they both are imperfect human beings, who both rose at times to demonstrate true courage in the senate. Teddy failed as a younger man in many ways, but that does not negate his achievements during the last 20 years of his life.

[QUOTE=Bame Mata]

CNN / OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL.

August 28-31

Obama's Health Care Plan.

Favor Oppose.

60% 39% 18-34 years old.

41% 56% 35-49 years old.

46% 53% 50-64 years old.

38% 60% 65 and older.

The poll has a fairly large sampling error of +/-8% , but the trend is still unmistakable.[/QUOTE]The trend is definitely unmistakable. People over 35 (During the period of time where the prime earning years and accumulation of wealth take place) OVERWHELMINGLY reject the proposed healthcare plan. During the 18 - 35 period I drank a lot and chased women. Oh wait, I still do at 46 so nevermind.

Ricardo,

I've never been to El Alamo, but I'd love to grab a pint or three to hash these things out. I doubt we'd solve anything, but it would be fun trying. If "capitalist pig" is the worst thing someone called me, I'd be doing well. I suspect you may feel the same way about a "socialist" jab.

We do approach things from different perspectives, but I appreciate your demeanor and your ability to articulate, and it's the different perspectives that make discussion forums like these go. I actually like a lot of what Obama is doing -- predominantly in the international arena. Sid would definitely disagree with me, but I also like much of what he's done domestically, such as letting some of the car companies go BK and cutting some of the bailouts off. I just object to much of the regulatory and tax issues.

Good to see you posting. I usually get back there every quarter or so. But, I was just there two weeks ago, and I have no fixed plans to return at the moment. A lot seems to be happening for one of my company's customers in Brazil right now, so I'm there more often now. That country also has its charms. If you're still in Buenos__Aires, I'll PM you to check whether a beer is an option next time I get down there. Being Irish and hailing from Boston, I'll bet you don't let silly little political differences get in the way of a good quaff.

Stan,

Next time you are in town we can make the Alamo serve as a faux White House where we channel Teddy and Reagan or Reagan and Tip O'Neill, my old political mentor. We can quaff a few as we debate our philosophies, tell a few jokes and outrage Sidney (who is a really good guy despite his leanings) We can invite Walleye along, if he promises to behave!

I promise not to make everyone sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" unless we meet on St. Patrick's Day.

I do hope you never were a shoe salesman (reference - Teddy's Oval Office meeting with "the Gipper" on shoe imports where Ronnie only talked of his salesman experience and ignored the agenda topic of cheap shoe imports killing the domestic manufacturers. That was intentional and shrewd on his part no doubt.

Good luck in Brazil. I have yet to decide who are the hottest - Portenas or the Cariocas - but that comparison is a lot more fun to ponder than whether the world is better off with more or less regulation of global markets.

By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"

There are some violently anti-union members who post here and rail against Obama, the D's, et al. Maybe in their time here they have come to confuse Peronism with the American labor movement?

Stay well!

[QUOTE=Ricardo]By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"[/QUOTE]Now you're just baiting me. It's Labor Day weekend here, and I plan to celebrate my union-free weekend, so I'm not going to take the bait just yet. ☻ Have a good one!

Enjoy the weekend!

Sidney. I don't get it either.

In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon.

As far as I know not many nations around the world demanded Nixon's return to power.

Now Hondorus does the same thing. The Supreme Court of Hondorus forced out the President of Hondorus for abuse of power and every fucking fruitloop in the world follows Chavez's chirping that it was a coup.

If we had a president with balls or brains, maybe our president has neither, we would have told Chavez to stick it up his filthy ass.

If we had told Chavez to shove it where the sun doesn't shine the number of countries listening to that idiot Chavez could have been counted on one hand.

In fact, we once had Presidents who defended democracies and supported the oppressed living under brutal dictatorships. Apparently not now.

I never thought I would see in my lifetime another president as confused and ineffective as that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter. However, it appears Obama may give Carter a run for his money. Frightening when you consider that it took us 4 years to figure out Carter was a complete and total idiot while it has only taken 6 months for Obama to live up to that description.

"In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon."

Is this true? I thought he resigned to avoid being impeached, nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Wake up people. It is so obvious![/QUOTE]Not that obvious. Its OK preaching to the converted, but care to explain why to the people who don't see it? They're the people who should be told.

Sidney and Alamo. Usually I prefer reasoned responses. This time, however, all I can say is you guys (who I like personally) are out of your fucking minds.

Obama by taking a careful stance on the Honduran impasse (which is less clear cut than you describe it Sidney) is far better than the idiocy of Reagan's Nicaragua debacle and Bush I's Panama fiasco.

Honduras is the least of problems back in the homeland. Any student of European history may look back to the Weimar Republic and get correctly concerned at tactics the opponents of Obama are using to try to nullify the 2008 election. That's something to worry about.

And if you think its because of his stimulus spending (40% of which was for middle class tax cuts) or health insurance reform proposals rather than because he is black, you may think that the BA chicas actually like sucking geezer dick!

The U. S. Political scene is being polluted by savage and vicious ranting of the talk-radio thugs. Their irresponsible and dangerous venom is spewed out every day to a significant number of people who mindlessly absorb the lies and distortions. Rush Limbaugh draws 14 million listeners per day, Michael Savage 12 million, Sean Hannity 10 million, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck about 3 million each. The total number of listeners to these poseurs on a daily basis is something like 28 million or more.

The mainstream press covers their calls for anti-democratic behavior and violence as though it was legitimate political discourse, which just magnifies its effect. Much of the press totally ignores the blatant, provable lies and fantasies that are being put into the minds of ignorant and angry people.

When you see gun-toting protesters at Obama events, somehow the mainstream press forgets to look back to how thousands of non-gun toting anti-Bush protesters were arrested and herded into fenced enclosures for hours during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York.

Mostly the talk show charlatans spread hatred, racial resentment, and a form of victimhood for their listeners who are no longer in charge of their fates, their families or the nation's politics and are fucking pissed about it. Most of the Obama-haters kids think they are fucking whack jobs.

(Three of my family members are card carrying nutters. We hardly speak any more and their kids can hardly tolerate them.

In reality the "talkers" do what they do to get ratings and make huge bucks, not to fulfill some commitment to civic duty. These guys commitment to democracy is the same as Bernie Madoff's commitment to safeguarding his investors' hard-earned money.

They are like the TV evangelists who preach Christianity on Sunday, run to the bank on Monday with the bags of money their poor flock sends them and spend Tuesday to Saturday in their mansions living a life of a Raj (many diddling young acolytes female and male)

The change in the tenor of talk show programs since the Obama election should be more of a concern for the future of American democracy than Obama's refusal to embrace the Honduran military.

(Sidney if Rush lived in Honduras, the military guys you like would have put under him under house arrest or exiled him (or worse) years ago)

Rush and company demonize as "socialists" and some evil lower life form - all Democrats (like me) and even moderate Republicans - none of whom are any farther left than they were for the past fifty years that the union survived fairly well.

They scream at their audience on a daily basis NOT to engage in reasoned discussion and debate, but to engage in "direct action" against "the enemy." They urge them to engage in mob violence, to disrupt meetings, to threaten public officials with bodily harm, to support and raise money for extremist paramilitary group, etc. Even when the anti-Iraq anti-Bush fever was at its' height, it was nothing like this.

Idiocy rules - think of the poor fool who yelled at his Congressman at a town meeting - "keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!"

This may not end well. There are many people who want Obama dead and say so.

Take a minute and think of what will happen in the US if someone on the right takes Obama out. You can kiss the good old USA goodbye. What happens across the country will make what happened after King was assassinated look like tail gate parties when the hometown team loses a game. The entire black, brown and yellow populations, most women and educated men, as well as a generation of young people will turn away in disgust at what was fostered and by whom.

Obama haters I caution you to be careful - you may get what you wish for and then heaven help us.