A number of writers have tried to draw a comparison between Barack Obama and America's 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Certainly, Obama has done nothing to dispel those comparisons. Yet a more apt comparison, alluded to by historian Richard Norton Smith, in Time Magazine, might be between Barack Obama and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Roosevelt and his opponent Hoover, like Obama and his opponent McCain, had very different economic policies. Hoover, even as the depression worsened, as banks in Chicago and New York City were closing, refused to allow the federal government to get involved. Hoover also refused to permit any federal aid to the poor. He believed that government welfare assistance was demeaning to proud Americans.
Obama, like Roosevelt, believes that the federal government can help ease the nation's economic woes. Roosevelt put people to work which at practically any job he could think make up. Whether this brought the nation out of the depression or not is debatable, but it did help to raise the confidence of Americans. The key feature in Obama's economic policy, as announced is several speeches since his election, is jobs. Obama says most of the jobs he helps create will be in the private sector, but he argues, putting Americans to work is what will get our economy rolling again.
More important, Smith writes, is that Obama, like FDR, sees our economic crisis not as a problem to be managed but as an opportunity to build a bond between the American people and their leaders. Roosevelt was able to reach out to Americans in their darkest moments and raise their confidence in themselves and their nation. Obama is attempting to do the same thing. He has announced a bold and open economic plan designed to build the confidence of Americans by putting them back to work.
Drawing comparisons like this too closely is dangerous and clearly 2009 is not 1933. Still, one thing is the same. Americans are proud and need to work to maintain their pride. Jobs were the answer in the 1930s and jobs are the answer to today's economic problems. If Obama's policies can put Americans back to work, history will view his administration as successful as was Roosevelt's government.
I also think that if he can provide these job opportunities, then it will build that bond between the people and the government. That bond has been badly damaged to some, if not severed to most.
Interesting comparison.
Hello Kimmi.. thanks for the comment. I think you are right the bond between people and their government has been badly damaged. That is the same problem FDR faced after Hoover. I hope Obama will be as successful as was FDR in rebuilding it.
I'm not comfortable with a "bond" between citizens and Government. Our Government should always respect and fear it's citizens, and it especially should NOT be the other way around.
In any event, here's a little mental exercise:
If Haliburton agreed to create 10, 000 new high-paying jobs, would you agree to lowering their taxes?
He!!, Halliburton has so much money that it could probably buy several small countries and donate them to the U.S. as a good-will gesture.
Ol' "Deadeye Dick" could own one or two himself by now -- 'course he might accidentally shoot some.......but that's just the risk you take when you "bond" with the Dick.
Hello Ghost. Well 10,000 jobs might help a locality if they were all in a given area. However, we lost almost 3 million jobs last year. So, 10,000 would not make a great deal of difference for out economy. Nevertheless, part of obama plan is to use taxes to help business create jobs. He wants jobs in green industries, but I think he might agree to your proposal. I'm not sure, but I think he might.
Quote from: drbob on January 18, 2009, 10:25:12 PM
Hello Ghost. Well 10,000 jobs might help a locality if they were all in a given area. However, we lost almost 3 million jobs last year. So, 10,000 would not make a great deal of difference for out economy. Nevertheless, part of obama plan is to use taxes to help business create jobs. He wants jobs in green industries, but I think he might agree to your proposal. I'm not sure, but I think he might.
Hello Bob, and welcome to the 'Zone.
Here's the thing: there is no such thing as a free lunch and Obama's plan proves it (once again).
If by "using taxes" to help businesses create jobs he means LOWERING taxes, then I am all for it.
But if he means RAISING taxes, then that's just dumb on its face. Kinda like his proposal to institute a "windfall" tax on the oil industry. How, exactly, would INCREASING the cost of delivering oil to the US cause a REDUCTION in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump?
The same with the "taxes for jobs" plan. How does increased taxation provide an incentive for businesses to hire more people?
The economy is bad, I agree. How does taking more of my money away from me in the form of higher taxes help me through this bad economic hardship?
I really with more Americans better understood how economies and markets work. We get so much bad economic legislation because people do not understand the "no free lunch" thing.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 19, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
Hello Bob, and welcome to the 'Zone.
Here's the thing: there is no such thing as a free lunch and Obama's plan proves it (once again).
If by "using taxes" to help businesses create jobs he means LOWERING taxes, then I am all for it.
But if he means RAISING taxes, then that's just dumb on its face. Kinda like his proposal to institute a "windfall" tax on the oil industry. How, exactly, would INCREASING the cost of delivering oil to the US cause a REDUCTION in the price of a gallon of gas at the pump?
The same with the "taxes for jobs" plan. How does increased taxation provide an incentive for businesses to hire more people?
The economy is bad, I agree. How does taking more of my money away from me in the form of higher taxes help me through this bad economic hardship?
I really with more Americans better understood how economies and markets work. We get so much bad economic legislation because people do not understand the "no free lunch" thing.
this was directed at dr. bob, but i can't help but reply. appologies if i step on your toes, dr. bob. no disrespect intended.
so, were bush's tax cuts contingent on hiring, or were they accross the board? if they came no strings attached then how is it any different from the bailout money that we've seen squandered? (i wonder how many new jobs were created when that money came through)
by raising taxes (actually just allowing the tax break to expire) we ARE lowering taxes on business
that choose to reinvest thier profits in their business... by buying newer equipment, hiring more staff, whatever. just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it not so. seems simple to me.
Quote from: awol on January 19, 2009, 12:12:48 PM
this was directed at dr. bob, but i can't help but reply. appologies if i step on your toes, dr. bob. no disrespect intended.
so, were bush's tax cuts contingent on hiring, or were they accross the board? if they came no strings attached then how is it any different from the bailout money that we've seen squandered? (i wonder how many new jobs were created when that money came through)
by raising taxes (actually just allowing the tax break to expire) we ARE lowering taxes on business that choose to reinvest thier profits in their business... by buying newer equipment, hiring more staff, whatever. just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it not so. seems simple to me.
I was/am not in favor of either bailout.
Please explain "by raising taxes we are lowering taxes..." I admit I just don't get that, it sounds like a direct contradiction.
Btw, here (again for you awol) is a link to an excellent short course in basic economics. It probably takes about half an hour to get through and well worth everyone's time and is a fascinating read:
http://www.jim.com/econ/contents.html
If you don't have time to read the whole thing, please at least read "The Lesson", and #5 "Taxes Discourage Production".
you'll pardon me if i don't consider "jim" the final authority on economics.
that said, businesses that have greater expenses make less money (on paper) than their counterparts that do not have such great expenses, though the value of the company in production capacity may have exceeded the more lean counterpart.
in short, less profit = less taxes.
want less taxes, buy more stuff, hire more people.
Quote from: awol on January 19, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
you'll pardon me if i don't consider "jim" the final authority on economics.
that said, businesses that have greater expenses make less money (on paper) than their counterparts that do not have such great expenses, though the value of the company in production capacity may have exceeded the more lean counterpart.
in short, less profit = less taxes.
want less taxes, buy more stuff, hire more people.
What jim explains on that website is pretty much basic economics. Principles that are almost universally agreed upon by economists, they are not just his "opinions".
Well, let's take your concept a little further and see how it pans out.
Less profit = less taxes, so 0 profit = 0 taxes. (Do businesses that operate at a loss get taxpayer money refunded, then?)
0 profit means layoffs, firings, etc in the real world.
People who cannot make a profit in a business typically close up shop and go do something else. I find it hard to believe that you think businesses should try to reduce profit in order to escape paying taxes.
Funny thing, I actually owned a business that didn't make a profit, and I still had to pay taxes out the wazoo. I got out of that business, btw. Profit is the motivator that causes businesses to expand to new markets, hire more employees, pay higher salaries and bonuses, etc. Profit is a good thing. And more of the profit businesses get to keep, the better for the economy as a whole.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 19, 2009, 02:08:18 PM
What jim explains on that website is pretty much basic economics. Principles that are almost universally agreed upon by economists, they are not just his "opinions".
big word, almost.
QuoteWell, let's take your concept a little further and see how it pans out.
Less profit = less taxes, so 0 profit = 0 taxes. (Do businesses that operate at a loss get taxpayer money refunded, then?)
i would assume so, but then admittedly, i know little about operating a business.
Quote0 profit means layoffs, firings, etc in the real world.
f you too. (any dismissive statement like "in the real world" only really means "f you". it never comes with any substance)
QuoteFunny thing, I actually owned a business that didn't make a profit, and I still had to pay taxes out the wazoo. I got out of that business, btw.
i've no reason to believe any of this. especially out of you.
QuoteProfit is the motivator that causes businesses to expand to new markets, hire more employees, pay higher salaries and bonuses, etc. Profit is a good thing. And more of the profit businesses get to keep, the better for the economy as a whole.
oh, so you think a business will forgo a tax advantage for a needed expansion, and choose to expand when there is little or no tax advantage?
Hello everyone... Thanks to you all for your comments.
Some of you have asked me for details of Obama's recovery plan. Will tax cuts by tied to hiring. I don't know. I doubt if Obama knows right not what his final recovery plan will look like. No doubt whatever he proposes, will be debated in Congress and compromises will have to be made. Even the president does not get everything he wants all the time. So, I will wait and see, along with you to see the final plan.
I noticed a lot of people expressing best wishes for Obama's presidency. I think all Americans agree with that sentiment. I think we must keep in mind that the problems, domestic and foreign, that this nation faces are deep and complex. No one, no matter how good, can fix them quickly. Even if Obama does the right things, or economic problems will not be over in a year. I hope folks will give him a chance.
Even FDR's economic policies did not work quickly. The U.S. did not really start to recover from the depression until some time into his second term.
Quote from: drbob on January 20, 2009, 09:01:29 AM
Hello everyone... Thanks to you all for your comments.
Some of you have asked me for details of Obama's recovery plan. Will tax cuts by tied to hiring. I don't know. I doubt if Obama knows right not what his final recovery plan will look like. No doubt whatever he proposes, will be debated in Congress and compromises will have to be made. Even the president does not get everything he wants all the time. So, I will wait and see, along with you to see the final plan.
I noticed a lot of people expressing best wishes for Obama's presidency. I think all Americans agree with that sentiment. I think we must keep in mind that the problems, domestic and foreign, that this nation faces are deep and complex. No one, no matter how good, can fix them quickly. Even if Obama does the right things, or economic problems will not be over in a year. I hope folks will give him a chance.
Even FDR's economic policies did not work quickly. The U.S. did not really start to recover from the depression until some time into his second term.
I agree, although given the media's propensity for over analysis and critiquing every move of a sitting POTUS, I am not very optimistic surrounding the sustainability of the high level of support and optimism currently held by the general public.
Unfortunately it seems the American public has clearly demonstrated that they are easily led about by persistant media barrages and opposing perspectives. "Monday morning quarterbacking" is the rule of the day surrounding so-called media "experts" that in reality, have far fewer qualifications and experience in government than those holding the reins of power. Yet in their desperation folks will cling to anything it would seem. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on January 20, 2009, 09:11:50 AM
I agree, although given the media's propensity for over analysis and critiquing every move of a sitting POTUS, I am not very optimistic surrounding the sustainability of the high level of support and optimism currently held by the general public.
Unfortunately it seems the American public has clearly demonstrated that they are easily led about by persistant media barrages and opposing perspectives. "Monday morning quarterbacking" is the rule of the day surrounding so-called media "experts" that in reality, have far fewer qualifications and experience in government than those holding the reins of power. Yet in their desperation folks will cling to anything it would seem. . .
I can't agree with you more. Listening to these so called experts makes my head hurt. I'm not sure how you become an expert in something you've never done before.
Quote from: awol on January 19, 2009, 03:59:57 PM
big word, almost.
Here ya go, a totally unbiased search of websites offering "Basic Economics 101":
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22basic+economics+101%22&sourceid=Mozilla-search&form=CHROME
And an unbiased dictionary/wiki of economic terminology:
http://www.economypedia.com/
Quote
...but then admittedly, i know little about operating a business.
I still welcome your comments, but please don't immediately discount my answers. I do speak from experience.
Quote
f you too. (any dismissive statement like "in the real world" only really means "f you". it never comes with any substance)
awol, I would never say such a thing to you or anyone else just because we disagree on economic theory and the effects of taxation.
I do tend to respond to people here in the "tone" that they address me, so maybe that's why you think I
might say such a thing.
But, no; I would just leave the thread or at least stop responding to your posts long before I would, ever get angry enough to say "f*** you".
What I meant by "in the real world" was simply that: historically, here is what happens under these circumstances.
Quote
i've no reason to believe any of this. especially out of you.
And I've no reason to lie to you about an embarrassing personal business failure. I owned a bar and grill, and I lost my a$$ on the venture. I am still feeling the repercussions emotionally and financially yet today, and I lost the business in 2006. I learned some hard lessons the hard way.
Quote
oh, so you think a business will forgo a tax advantage for a needed expansion, and choose to expand when there is little or no tax advantage?
Mmmmm....possibly, if the increase in revenue would more than compensate for the revenue lost to the taxation.
When it will not, then businesses who need to increase capacity will expand in manners that avoid the excessive taxation.
They do things like move jobs out of this country to other countries that are more "tax-friendly" toward business.
Hello folks thanks for the comments.
I'm not sure you have to do a particular job to be able to make reasonable observations about it. I've never been in government and I would in no way call my self an expert, but I do think I can make reasonably thoughtful observations about what government does. Some (emphasis on some) reporters do the same.
However, I do not want to defend the media. I have been a critical of it as anyone. I criticize their values. Circulation of audience is their prime objective. Telling us the news objectively comes a distant second.
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 20, 2009, 10:22:15 AM
What I meant by "in the real world" was simply that: historically, here is what happens under these circumstances.
great! assertion. let's see your data.
Quote from: drbob on January 20, 2009, 02:33:53 PM
Hello folks thanks for the comments.
I'm not sure you have to do a particular job to be able to make reasonable observations about it. I've never been in government and I would in no way call my self an expert, but I do think I can make reasonably thoughtful observations about what government does. Some (emphasis on some) reporters do the same.
However, I do not want to defend the media. I have been a critical of it as anyone. I criticize their values. Circulation of audience is their prime objective. Telling us the news objectively comes a distant second.
Observations are fine, as well as opinions. Even dissention is constructive in the right environment. The media, (the majority IMHO), holds none of these as the motive behind what it puts out there. Predatory comes to mind, but you are correct in saying it is all about the circulation/viewership numbers/ratings. Bottom line, the almighty dollar.
Hypothetically; there is the risk that in continuing with such practices the media opens itself to potential relegation of a status similar to that of the National Enquirer; a fictional rag in which there is no truth to be found. If the new POTUS can manage to demonstrate progression and hold the favor of the nation's majority, the media may soon find itself far removed from the trust and respect of the majority of the American public. (A status they richly deserve right now IMHO).
That being said, I am sure there are a number of honest journalists out there that do their very best to remain objective and report in an honest and constructive manner. I don't know who they are but I have hope that they do indeed exist! :wink: :smile: (Last 2 I knew of worked for the Washington Post).
Quote from: awol on January 20, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
great! assertion. let's see your data.
Well, from recent news for example: how about the car makers? Dropping profits meant layoffs, factory closings...it's still going on, actually. Their lack of profits is their justification for needing a bailout. If we don't bail them out, what will happen? They will go bankrupt and out of business, causing thousands more people to lose their jobs (and I'm STILL not in favor of it as a "giveaway").
Also "ripped form the headlines", people all agree that the economy is bad. The unemployment rate is up, almost everyone knows someone who has lost their job. Why would they be losing their jobs? Because the companies they work for no longer profit enough from their labor (I know that sounds cruel, but labor is a commodity with a value that goes up and down just like every other commodity).
So I think my point about low or zero profits means people will be out of work is made quite clear just be reading the newspaper.
If you have an alternate theory I''d be open to hearing it.
Btw, here's an interesting factoid I heard on a financial radio show a few years back: at the turn of the LAST century (1899-1900) there were approximately 200 auto manufacturers in the US. The ones that could not make a profit either closed or were bought up by what became the Big Three (ending when JEEP was bought by Chrysler, imo). Some if not all of the divisions of General Motors (Chevrolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, etc) were once independent auto manufacturers, iirc.
bush's tax cuts are still in play. your data seems to contradict your point.
Quote from: Palehorse on January 20, 2009, 03:23:55 PM
Observations are fine, as well as opinions. Even dissention is constructive in the right environment. The media, (the majority IMHO), holds none of these as the motive behind what it puts out there. Predatory comes to mind, but you are correct in saying it is all about the circulation/viewership numbers/ratings. Bottom line, the almighty dollar.
Hypothetically; there is the risk that in continuing with such practices the media opens itself to potential relegation of a status similar to that of the National Enquirer; a fictional rag in which there is no truth to be found. If the new POTUS can manage to demonstrate progression and hold the favor of the nation's majority, the media may soon find itself far removed from the trust and respect of the majority of the American public. (A status they richly deserve right now IMHO).
That being said, I am sure there are a number of honest journalists out there that do their very best to remain objective and report in an honest and constructive manner. I don't know who they are but I have hope that they do indeed exist! :wink: :smile: (Last 2 I knew of worked for the Washington Post).
It's hard to get a positive message out when every media outlet except for Fox News is out to discredit you.If this election has taught us anything it is that journalistic integrity is the newest in a long list of oxymorons.The media is a bias liberial machine bent on pushing it's owner agenda on us.And the other is that P.T. Barnum was way off when he said that one was born every minute it's more like every second.
God help us all
Quote from: Doc on January 20, 2009, 11:27:11 PM
It's hard to get a positive message out when every media outlet except for Fox News is out to discredit you.If this election has taught us anything it is that journalistic integrity is the newest in a long list of oxymorons.The media is a bias liberial machine bent on pushing it's owner agenda on us.And the other is that P.T. Barnum was way off when he said that one was born every minute it's more like every second.God help us all
You mean the corporate owned media? Liberal? Yeah, right. Could it be that the conservatives themselves make it virtually impossible to be presented as anything other than the assclowns they are?
Quote from: awol on January 20, 2009, 07:05:44 PM
bush's tax cuts are still in play. your data seems to contradict your point.
There are a lot of factors affecting the current recession. Maybe taxes weren't cut far enough? Maybe a profligate House and Senate spent too much money?
If you don't believe that a loss of profits can cause companies to eliminate jobs, then what do you think does?
Quote from: Ghost of Jaco on January 21, 2009, 12:54:26 PM
There are a lot of factors affecting the current recession. Maybe taxes weren't cut far enough? Maybe a profligate House and Senate spent too much money?
If you don't believe that a loss of profits can cause companies to eliminate jobs, then what do you think does?
a loss of profitability. i believe you are confusing the two.
Hey, Doc.
You think that the ideas that the news media are biased is significant only recently?
Obviously you never read history very carefully, or else the name of William Randolph Hearst might have come to mind.
But, then again, he was ultra conservative, so he wouldn't possibly be biased.
Quote from: awol on January 21, 2009, 02:56:20 PM
a loss of profitability. i believe you are confusing the two.
So, you are saying that it's a loss of the profits themselves, necessarily, but the loss of the
ability to continue to make a profit?
In other words, it's not that they don't have any money, but that they cannot make any more money?
Hmmm....not sure I can
disagree with that. I'll have to think that over. It's a fine distinction, to be sure, but there is a difference.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 21, 2009, 03:17:45 PM
Hey, Doc.
You think that the ideas that the news media are biased is significant only recently?
Obviously you never read history very carefully, or else the name of William Randolph Hearst might have come to mind.
But, then again, he was ultra conservative, so he wouldn't possibly be biased.
When it comes to biases, news organizations today are rank amateurs when compared to Hearst, and going way back before him, even! The difference I think is that they didn't pretend otherwise like news organizations do today.