jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (78 posts)

Is there a conspracy by Wall Street, Big Business, and Insurance

  1. junko profile image81
    junkoposted 5 years ago

    To cause the President to fail? Is that why Big Business is not hiring and sitting on all that money? Why is Health insurance covering less and costing more? What's more important to the Nation and American people Jobs or who's president?

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There are many reasons for business to be sitting on cash but mainly it's uncertainty about how Obama's legislation will affect their bottom line going forward. Remember, we had to pass the health care bill to see what was in it... now we're waiting to see. Health care costs were NOT addressed at all by the bill... insurance companies simply pass costs along so if labs and doctors are charging more, than insurance companies can't absorb it all. Believe me, it's only going to get worse as more of Obamacare is enacted.

      Oh, and another reason companies are sitting on cash... they're waiting to see if Obama changes the corporate tax... many companies have made big chunks of money over seas and would be penalized severely if the repatriate it.

      1. DTR0005 profile image85
        DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why Lady, are you inadvertantly saying the cost control measures should be put into place to control lab and doctors' costs?

        1. Stump Parrish profile image61
          Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Have you honestly ever seen lady post anything advertantly? The richest of the rich got rich while paying a 90% tax rate. Forcing them to pay a 36% tax rate vs a 33% rate is not what is holding this country back from being a third class, second class, country.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image81
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ... why the heck would a business intentionally not try to make a profit?

      That's complete nonsense.

      I recommend the following books to anyone who wishes to learn the answers to what's going on:

      "How an economy grows, and why it crashes", by Peter Schiff (Reagan's economic analyst, Art Laffer, still owes Schiff a penny)
      Quick video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78a84qbT5-w

      and

      "Lessons for the young economist", by Robert Murphy.
      Here's a longer video. It includes the author talking about the book with a friend/coworker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjZwveXx0qs

      Both are easy to read, cheap, and make an unbelievable amount of sense.

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan G Rogers:  "why would a business intentionally not try to make a profit?" It don't make sense not even if the President is a Liberal.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image81
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          what?

          1. junko profile image81
            junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Evan G Rogers: I was repeating what you wrote, in other words.

      2. ElderYoungMan profile image77
        ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Why in deed.  Just under 3 Million jobs were created by the private sector in 2010.  Enough to bring the unemployment rate down below 9%.  The only problem is that private business invested money into foreign markets and economies, during a recession and during a time when the government has made concession after concession, from both sides of the isle.  I say screw them.  Let them fail or let them leave and we rebuild.  They are off-shoring right now to avoid having to be a part of addressing the deficits that have been created war mongering and coddling big business.....How patriotic...

        Yes, there is a conspiracy, but it isn't all that complex.  Good old simple greed and maliciousness towards other people.

        1. ElderYoungMan profile image77
          ElderYoungManposted 5 years ago in reply to this
          1. junko profile image81
            junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Elder:  thanks for your comments and the link that supports my beliefs.

      3. dutchman1951 profile image61
        dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, excelent book and a great read, thanks for recomending it.

        1. junko profile image81
          junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          great read, o"k must check it out

    3. KFlippin profile image60
      KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to be implying that American businesses are sitting on money because they do not like the President?  Hardly plausible, and quite a silly notion, IMO.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        But is it such a silly notion? Put the brakes on development for a year to ensure eight good years under a president that you own?

        1. KFlippin profile image60
          KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It is so amazing to me that so few liberals grasp the fact this administration and any other liberal administration is owned, is held fast, is influenced, by business interests as well, but rather than open capitalistic interests, it is the shadow uber rich.

          A particularly grotesque example is the whistle blower that is now imprisoned under the Obama administration, the very whistle blower that lead to the offer of amnesty if Americans with their billions overseas would come forward.  Obama was said to be golfing with the head of UBS while this poor man was begging for clemency.  Wake up.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So, you agree with me! The ones that are want the government not to be so supportive of the shadow uber rich and more supportive of the real uber rich.

            1. KFlippin profile image60
              KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ?????  No, do not think we agree, and you should dwell on your statement a bit to see if you actually really agree with it, strikes me as rather oxymoronic . . . which is a literary term and in no way an insult.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hey you're talking to a literate lefty here, I have come across the word oxymoron before once or twice, probably learnt it off day time TV smile

                Yes, I do stand by my original statement, what is wrong with believing business would manipulate its own affairs for gain?

                1. KFlippin profile image60
                  KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That was your original statement........?? 

                  Hmmm.....was that some agreement that businesses in America are sitting on cash, deliberately hurting themselves financially, to deliberately hurt the economy and thus get their own owned President?? Ah Hah, was that it?? So that would be the publicly known uber rich as opposed to the shadow uber rich influence??   

                  Neither are doing a thing, IMO, to hurt themselves deliberately, it is against all capitalistic principles, and as hard as it may be for liberals to accept, the uber liberal rich have their interests, their capitalistic investments, primarily at heart, it is purely human nature.

                  1. junko profile image81
                    junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The super and uber rich have homes and money in many denoinations. they make more money internationally than national. c'mon, KFlippin.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    But they aren't doing a single thing to hurt themselves though are they? Not even short term, and long term they see themselves being far better off.
                    Indeed they have their interests and will fight to keep them.

                  3. AnnCee profile image78
                    AnnCeeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Sitting on cash?   It seems to me cash is being churned in the stock market quite vigorously right now.

                    For the big boys who swing the market there is little risk that churning the market to make froth money out of nothing will result in loss.   Of course as the Fed continues to print money it continues to fall in value and the market can hardly be expected to keep up with an insane monetary policy.   But they are doing what they can.

                    But compare merely churning money to stretching yourself out in business activity for which you can MAKE NO PLANS.  How can you hire?   Once you've hired someone there are laws that don't let you just shake them off.  How can you make contracts?   How can you count on supplies at an agreed cost?  How can you depend on your market? 

                    Most important, how can you depend on tax laws and regulations?  The last law congress passed regarding business was not so much a guide for business as a mandate for appointed regulators to make it up as they went along.

                    No business knows what the Obama regime will do next.   

                    Will they decide that hair dye is dangerous and charge a special fee on the service as they did with tanning beds?

                    Will they decide an activity harms the environment and shut it down against court orders to desist as they did with gulf oil?

                    Will they attempt to take over an entire industry, like banking, as they did the health industry?

                    Will they decide compensations are too high?   Will they raise taxes?   Will they shut down farming because snails are dying in mud puddles?

                    We are in a morass of uncertainty under Barack Obama.   You don't overextend into the future in such an environment of uncertainty.


                    Obama is officially a tyrant. Do you trust your future, your fortune to a tyrant who makes things up as he goes along? 


                    Judge Vinson didn't include an order to desist in his ruling that the health care legislation was unconstitutional.  He said instead that the ruling itself was enough and the party ruled against would desist.  It has been ruled unconstitutional.  The Obama regime says, "We don't agree.  We will proceed."   That's not how it works.  Not for anybody but this regime.



                    Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare

                    Posted by Ilya Shapiro

                    As I continue digesting Judge Vinson's ruling, I notice two key things beyond the facts that the "individual mandate is unconstitutional":

                    1.  In performing his severability analysis -- determining which parts of the overall legislation survive -- the judge threw out all of Obamacare:

                        In sum, notwithstanding the fact that many of the provisions in the Act can stand independently without the individual mandate (as a technical and practical matter), it is reasonably “evident,” as I have discussed above, that the individual mandate was an essential and indispensable part of the health reform efforts, and that Congress did not believe other parts of the Act could (or it would want them to) survive independently. I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit. The individual mandate cannot be severed. This conclusion is reached with full appreciation for the “normal rule” that reviewing courts should ordinarily refrain from invalidating more than the unconstitutional part of a statute, but non-severability is required based on the unique facts of this case and the particular aspects of the Act. This is not a situation that is likely to be repeated.

                    2.  In discussing whether to issue an injunction -- a judicial command to do or refrain from doing something -- the judge determined that his declaratory judgment in this context was the same as an injunction.  That is, a federal court saying that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional is effectively the same as a decision mandating the government to act:

                        Declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court.  [Quoting a D.C. Circuit opinion written by none other than then-Judge Antonin Scalia]

                    In short, if I read the opinion (plus this final judgment) correctly -- quite apart from both the lofty philosophical principles I applaud Judge Vinson for adopting and the nitty-gritty technical details of his individual mandate analysis -- Obamacare is dead in its tracks.  Now, Judge Vinson himself or the Eleventh Circuit (or even the Supreme Court) may issue an emergency stay of this or any other part of the ruling, but as of right now, the federal government must stop implementing Obamacare.


                    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/florida- … obamacare/

      2. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That not so, I ask a question, it's not silly, and it is plausible, and you know it is, KFlippin.

        1. junko profile image81
          junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lady_love said not implied that business position it self to not be helpful to the President. Maybe you might want to ask her was she impling anything.

  2. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Yes! They are waiting it out hoping a Repub will be elected next time, so they can go back to business as usual....deathcare for profit.

    Get rid of Bank regs, credit card regs, insurance regs, the loopholes Obama took out, the proposed green energy, railway and infrastructure re-building...anything that helps ordinary people and creates jobs....anything that will make Obama look good.

    They are waiting it out, so they can call Obama a failure. But it's due to their obstruction and corporate butt-kissing.

    They want Mussolini-style fascism, IMO. Because if you go back and see....religion was a big part of Mussolini's regime too.....oppressive. And lefties were thrown in jail, beaten and had their kids taken away. Sent to catholic monasteries and convents......

    Corporations ruled with their big gvt buddies...to the detriment of all the people. AND they had a big psy-op back then too....Operation Gladio. Prop Due 2.

    Cold, steel hand of gvt+corp....ordinary people are nothing.

    Union-Busting. Progress-busting. Backwards Looking. Old people back in the streets.That's why they will fail.

    1. Barbara Kay profile image85
      Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Some people believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of the middle class and have only the super rich and the rest of us as cheap labor. I don't necessarily agree, but I'm open to the thoughts of others.

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There was no other nation in the world where the people had so much wealth, freedom, and power. Now we have less wealth, freedom, and power. In the world today most nation are ran by the super rich and the rest of the people is cheap uneducated labor. I really don't know what to think, I guess you will have to come to your own conclusion.

      2. KFlippin profile image60
        KFlippinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only conspiracy to get rid of the middle class is found primarily in rich international leftist groups and indiviuals, they have a stake in creating a greater divide between the poor and the rich, in destroying the middle class, they see a thriving middle class as consuming too much of the worlds resources, claim to see it as a threat, and in the meantime, they are buying up the potential farm lands across the world, to ensure they are in a power position as the population increases, and all the while they are kissing the butt of the United Nations, and/are directly a part of the United Nations, and in America seeing to it that our own EPA accetps UN bullshit decrees as gospel, without benefit of any oversight or review .........IMO.

      3. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Big business thrives on the purchases made by a healthy middle class. Wall Street wants lots of little people to buy cars and houses and expensive widgets, preferably bought on credit. But each company wants to pay dirt wages to THEIR employees, and expect the OTHER companies will pay high salaries so someone is wealthy enough to purchase their crap..

        See the problem? Only when all companies pay a healthy wage, is there a healthy middle class consumer. The greed of companies who will starve their own people will be the undoing of the whole society.

        1. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Is a "national sick-out" beyond the realm of possibility? Remember - labor turns capital into wealth. You remove the oh-so-overlooked leg of this three-legged stool and what happens????

          1. Doug Hughes profile image61
            Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You sound like one of those wobblies.

            Pun intended.  From Wikipedia "The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or the Wobblies) is an international union. At its peak in 1923, the organization claimed some 100,000 members in good standing ..."

            1. DTR0005 profile image85
              DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I might just be a wobblie or a subversive - you don't know, do you? lolll

  3. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "insurance companies simply pass costs along so if labs and doctors are charging more, than insurance companies can't absorb it all."

    Single-payer. Medicare for all. UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE!

    get with the 20th century, let alone the 21st!

    1. junko profile image81
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lovemychris:  I'm glad I asked and I'm glad you answered.

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lady love: Do you think there is a chance that the two year delay in the growth of American economy can cause it to go back in to recession?  I think Big Business and Wall street Is opening a hole at the bottom of the boat they are in, It don't make sense.

        1. lady_love158 profile image60
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But the economy is growing productivity is at all time highs and corporate profits are good... but the economy isn't growing fast enough and Obamas health care laws are strectched out over time with the worst of the provisions going into force after 2012 elections... companies aren't going to hire and they are going to hold ontotheir cash cushion until they have clear visability on the future economic environment. I believe there is a risk we will slide back into recession especiall with energy prices at multi year highs and a chance the middle east blow up will make them higher.

    2. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I thought you live in MA? Don't you already have universal health care? How's that working out for ya?

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lady_love: The economy isn't growing as far as job creation. Productivity is high because the people who have jobs must work harder to keep the jobs.  I agree that corporate profit are too high. I didn't questioned Obamacare.  No, I don't live in MA.

        1. junko profile image81
          junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          blue and yellow dogs are...

        2. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Junko, you said a mouthful. The goal of capitalism is not to PRODUCE jobs regardless of what the die-hard Right would like you to believe. You could argue that the ultimate goal of capitalism is to elimate jobs through streamlining efficiency, mechanization, etc.  Jobs cost business owners money - potential profit. If your job can be done somewhere else or by someone else for less money, rest assured it will - that's the capitalist way. Why pay some guy in Baltimore $12 an hour with shit*y benefits when you can pay a firm in Bangalore $.50 an hour with no benefits to do the same thing.  And I am not putting the system down per se - it is what it is and there is no going back, but let's call a spade a spade here. Industry wants to get all the tax perks from Uncle Sugar and pay none of the price. That just makes good "business sense" under the capitalist model. And that is good ole  greed at its finest. It's called corporate socialism and both the Left and the Right have bought into it. The Right reckons that Jesus Christ and God are good capitalists and have Mr. and Mrs. America convinced that in order to be a good Christian you must agree with the party mantra. So the only Godly thing to do is support this ultimately repressive system and to slam "that socialist Kenyan in the White House..." The Left believes that if it just gives "enough," American industry will see the light and do the "right thing" and supply jobs to people. Both the Left and the Right are extremely naive. I almost have more respect for the hard Right and their corporate cronies - they make no bones about which side their bread is buttered on...

          1. junko profile image81
            junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            DTR0005: Very good comment, and what you wrote need to be read.

          2. Barbara Kay profile image85
            Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hmm. What you wrote makes a lot of sense, but it still doesn't make me have better feelings for the Right.

  4. Doug Hughes profile image61
    Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago

    No Conspiracy. Here's my read on what's feeding the recession.

    Eight million unemployed. That's a big chunk of money that's NOT getting spent every month. Unemployment only pays 50% of your previous pay do there's a big bite out of spending. Less spending = less jobs.

    Consumer confidence. There's a reason they poll on this. When consumers are jittery, they only spend on essentials. At the end of the Bush term, we were bleeding jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month. Those jobs have not returned and for the most part consumers are still jittery.

    Business austerity. One of he big consumers is business. In the current recession, plant capacity exceeds demand, so there's no expansion or investment and nervous management is spending the least amount they can. Less consumption = less jobs.

    Real estate crash. Do you remember 5 years ago when home owners would refinance to cash out equity? If you had a house worth $200K and the appreciation was 5% per year, your house was 'earning' 10K per year and workers who have seen little real increase in pay were using the house as an extra income. That's gone. (In fact, employers have taken advantage and salaries are decreasing under the implied threat of layoffs.)

    Business is waiting for things to 'get better' before they do anything. That guarantees a long, slow recovery. If all  business bumped up hiring and spending, just a little, we would pull out of this. But no one wants to be first or take the risk, so they are all waiting for somebody else to fix it.

    1. junko profile image81
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      All the while our boat is taking on water. Business had better do what it can to generate this economy or they will have to  move off shore. They've already visit over there and found it pleasant. If the US economy fails it would'nt be so pleasant off shore for long.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Business will act when doing the 'right thing' is the lesser of two evils.

        Any business who want's a slice of the bigest consumer market in the world should be given a choice between paying high taxes on profits OR adding US jobs relative to their profitability.

        1. junko profile image81
          junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you mean excess to China?

          1. junko profile image81
            junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            IS THERE A CONSPRACY BY WALL STREET, BIG BUSINESS, AND INSURANCE...to cause the president fail?

          2. JON EWALL profile image48
            JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            junko and hubbers
            Let's not leave the Government out of the problems with the economy.
            As a past president once said '' government is not the solution, government is the problem''.
            Since 2009 up to the present the government has spent  ( borrowed money  ) $4.5 trillion on trying to resurrect the economy. In the past 2 years the government has grown 20% and now have control of 60% of the economy while the private sector has not advanced. New Government legislation, regulations and taxes have had a great impact on the private sector employers and industries. Businesses cannot survive without making a profit with the additional non productive regulations.

            1. junko profile image81
              junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              JON EWALL: I agree goverment or the lack there of is part of the economic problems. The lack of regulations of Big Business and Wall Street was the major cause of the recession. You can't expect a capitalist business and financial institutions to not take advantage of weak rules in pursuit of profit. Besides the ovious, case in point, on line education and federal education grants. Grant assistance is offered for young and old to take advantage of the goverment education programs. The goverment must regulate it's programs, it makes sense to do so.

              1. junko profile image81
                junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                O'k no opinions huh

            2. DTR0005 profile image85
              DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Jon, respectfully let me point something out. Ronald Reagan, the author of your quote, talked a very good game, but in reality, government grew to enormous levels under him. Now admittedly, this expansion of government was not on the "social" side of the street but rather in the military. In fact there were deep cuts in almost all social spending under Reagan. And the conservative argument in the day was the following: government money spent with military contractors "trickles" down into the economy and ultimately promotes prosperity - defense contractors pay taxes, their employees pay taxes, their employees buy homes, buy food, etc. Now that was truly the conservative argument to support enormous military expenditures during the 1980's. And conservatives, in large part because it was Ronald Reagan, fell into step with this idealogy. And none or very little of this military expansion was paid for with real money via tax revenues, etc - it was basically "borrowed" money. But at the time, that was a good thing. It was "Reaganomics, Voodoo Economics." And it didn't work; the deficit when Reagan left office had ballooned out of control. So the DOD spent most of the 1990's mopping up the mess. I worked for the DOD in the early 90's in finanace and accounting and I saw this firsthand.
              Then comes Clinton. Like him or hate him, he let some of the bloat out of the military, reinvested in the "social" side of government, and well things were pretty good when he left office - we had a budget surplus. And we actually shrunk the size of government under a democrat's watch. No one likes to admit that, but it's true.
              Now comes Little Bush. We  expand the military and some social programs and fight two wars without raising taxes. Again, this was all on borrowed money. And during the process, we increase the size of government with Homeland Security, etc.
              I think my long-winded point is this: Conservatives will say they are for smaller government, but everyone (Republican) from the time of Eisenhower has indeed grown the size of government. Conservatives will say they are fiscally responsible, yet time and again they will borrow money to pay for government expansion without raising taxes. I believe most conservatives have truly become "blinded" with this idealogy of "trickle down economics" because it just doesn't work. They just keep holding onto the dream that if they believe hard enough it will somehow change the base nature of human beings.
              And yeah, government has grown under Obama. But I am willing to bet that but for the Financial Crisis in 2008, it would not have grown to the current level it is at now. But for the Financial Crisis, I think Healthcare Reform would have been the only major "change" with this current administration. But when the US, in large part, is on the brink of bringing down the world's economy, what do you do? Do you let the free market, which got us there to start with, finish us off? When our entire automotive industry is sitting before Congress saying, "we're going under without your help," what do you do?

              1. junko profile image81
                junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                All I can say is, it was worth reading all that. I felt you in your words which sound sincere to me. I don't believe you gave false or disinformation  if so it wasn't on purpose. thanks

                1. junko profile image81
                  junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No more opinions?

                  1. DTR0005 profile image85
                    DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No.. I have ranted enough loll
                    Though I do remember one economics professor I had describeing "trickle down economics" as a little boy standing on barn roof peeing on the crowd below...

              2. JON EWALL profile image48
                JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                DTR0005 & company
                You said ''When our entire automotive industry is sitting before Congress saying, "we're going under without your help," what do you do?''

                The government has no business in using tax payer money to bail out union pension funds and private companies and /or taking control of them. Instead of the courts acting on bankruptcy action, our government took over those industries. The end result so far was that the unions got ownership, the government got ownership and the bondholders of the debt got shafted. What the Obama Administration did was in violation of the constitution, in other words a socialistic move as what would take place in a communist government.

                Some years ago if you can remember, Chrysler was going under and the government was asked for help. They were going under with the same kind of problems because of union wages and pensions. The US Government helped by backing the loans provided by the banking industry to keep Chrysler afloat. The government spent $ 0 taxpayers dollars to save Chrysler. Lee Iacocca with the unions brought the company back from the brink. Chrysler paid back all the loans. Isn’t that something that Chrysler is back again, this time with GM.

                Reagan is long gone, the economy is of no concern to him now. President Obama and a super majority Democrat controlled Congress is in charge now. Just remember that the Democrats took majority control of both Houses of Congress in Jan. 2007, Obama was also in the Senate at that time too. Let’s face the truth, Pelosi and Reid were in super control of Congress from 2007 to 2008 in the last 2 years of the Bush Administration.
                Jan 2011 the government had a  $50 billion deficit, adding  more to the national debt. The Obama record deficit spending for 2009 $1.12 trillion, 2010 $1.3trillion and 2011 $1.45 trillion and still unemployment  is at 9.4% with voodoo calculations.

                Ps I will respond to other issues you brought up.

                1. junko profile image81
                  junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Jon: Was the previous administration's handling of wall street at the end of that administration a violation of the constitution and a socialistic communist goverment move?  You seem to be more than an observer of the Obama administration, If the president asked your advice concerning the US auto crisis, what would you have advised?

                  1. JON EWALL profile image48
                    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Junko
                    ''Was the previous administration's handling administration a violation of the constitution and a socialistic communist government move?  NO, that's why Congress needed to approve of the spending to save the financial industry. If you recall some banks were forced to take $ billions even though they were not in trouble. The big banks on wallstrret were the problem including Fannie and Freddie. Congress passed a $700 billion bill to support the loses of the big banks .As DTR005 said ,a portion of the $700 billion was needed and banks have paid the money back plus interest.
                    The auto industry had nothing to do with banking, their problem was a loss of jobs and a collapse of industrial production. The auto industry should have filed for bankruptcy and proceeded to the legal system. The unions and the companies were jointly responsible for the collapse, the government's interference was not needed except to offer loan guarantees to whoever provided capital to continue the business as the government did in the  Lee Iacocca /Chrysler collapse.
                    The Obama Administration’s actions in essence was a payback to unions for supporting his election.
                    Sad to say that much of the stimulus money has gone to save public union employees jobs, hire new government workers  and states to save union pension funds. The private sector union workers got nothing but unemployment pay.

                2. DTR0005 profile image85
                  DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Who says the government has no business guaranteeing bad debt, obligations, or making loans to private enterprise? It's done everyday. Seriously John - are you a constitutional lawyer? I am not nor am I a financial crisis economics expert. I suspect there is no one living today, prior to two years ago, with any "real world" experience in how to prevent another Great Depression. I have noticed that many very vocal conservatives are quick to throw around the "constitutionality" of public policy as if constitutional law were as black and white as buying a bottle of soda. Debate is great and very "American" as evidenced by our writing here, but are either you or I really qualified to do so?
                  And is an industry asking for help from the government and receiving it with some added "strings" really a socialist takeover of private enterprise? I could see your point if Obama pulled tanks up in front of GM, changed the locks, and said - "you're done - we're taking over." But Jon, you seem like an educated and professional gentleman - do you really believe this? And I gave the bankruptcy alternative some serious thought as well. But then what would have happened to the secondary and tertiary industries (suppliers) if this had gone to bankruptcy? Can you imagine the "trickle down" effect (pun intended) this would have had throughout the US and Canada? You being a business man surely realize how interconnected these markets are.

                  Here are some facst from the US Treasury - $410.46 billion has been spent on the TARP, $274.38 billion has been paid back (as of 2/11/2011.)
                  Yeah surprising isn't it? Considering that all the mostly Right-Wing propoganda talked about the $700 billion price tag. Of that total spent, Detroit got about $81 billion; so far they have back $30.42 billion.

                  By the way, Banking got $274.39 billion from the TARP. And almost all of that money has been paid back. Total estimated cost to the American taxpayer for the TARP is around $66 billion. Not nothing, but in comparison ,it's about the equivalent of 4.5 months in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                  1. JON EWALL profile image48
                    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    DTR & HUBBERS

                    The public has been told by the mainstream media and President Obama that President Bush  in 2008 had left office with a $1.3 trillion deficit. That is true ,actually the $deficit was $600 billion, the $700 billion Tarp bill was added to make the deficit $1.3 trillion. Remember the $700 billion was borrowed money, important to note that.

                    You reported that only $410.46 was used, so actually the Bush deficit would only be $1.1 trillion, correct?
                    It was reported that the banks have paid back the money plus interest.
                    The auto bail out was ( you said )$ 81 billion, they have paid back $ 30billion ,leaving a balance of $50billion plus interest, agree? It has been reported that the $50 billion will not be paid and the taxpayers will lose.
                    The way the Tarp bill was written ,any monies not used were to be returned to the treasury to pay down the debt. The Obama administration and the super majority Democrat congress did not  return the money as required by the bill. The minority party ( Republicans ) fought to have the funds returned but were shut down. THE NOV. ELECTIONS put the Democrats in control of Congress and the Presidency, a complete control of the government.  TO HEAR THE DEMOCRATS  TALK, THE PROBLEMS WERE CAUSED BY THE REPUBLICANS WHO COULD NOT STOP ANYTHING IN CONGRESS.

                    The Tarp funds were to rescue the financing and banking industry. So how and why were the funds used for another problem? The government under Democrat control rescued the union pension funds, supplied capitol  to pay payrolls and took complete control of the industry.

                    I welcome you all to check the facts out.  Try to bypass the biased news agencies or blogs. Simply find the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  5. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    What a great idea!!! See how far they get without labor to hold them together....and supply them with their fancy lifestyles!

  6. Barbara Kay profile image85
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    I've seen some really good opinions here. I think some of you should write some hubs on this topic.

  7. 69
    logic,commonsenseposted 5 years ago

    No such thing as the 'Bush' deficit, nor for that matter, an 'Obama' deficit.  If one reads the Constitution they will see that Congress decides how much is spent.  The President can only send them a budget.  They are not bound by law to follow it. 
    So the last 2 years have been the 'Democrat' deficit and at least the next 2 years will be the 'Republican' deficit.

    1. JON EWALL profile image48
      JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      logic, commonsense

      ''If one reads the Constitution they will see that Congress decides how much is spent.  The President can only send them a budget ''

      Yes ,Congress decides how much is spent but remember that the President can use his veto power and send the budget back to Congress for amendments before he signs it to become law. The president always either gets credit for the good and/or the bad economy.
      Take note that President Obama and the majority controlled Democrat Congress did not produce a budget for 2011. The newly elected Republican controlled house is working on the 2011 budget The Democrats still hold a majority vote in the Senate. Recently the CBO issued a report that estimated the deficit for 2011 to be $1.6trillion, the highest in history. One can now understand why a budget was not even brought to Congress prior to the Nov. 2010 election.

      ‘’So the last 2 years have been the 'Democrat' deficit and at least the next 2 years will be the 'Republican' deficit.’’
      Democrats control   2009 $ 1.1 deficit ,2010 $1.25 trillion deficit, 2011 $1.6 trillion deficit and 2012 Obama budget projection estimate $1.1 deficit, now a split control of Congress.
      **** the Obama administration hasn’t been right in any projections so far

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Jon : The democrat's deficit minus two unfunded wars,minus the unfunded prescription bill, minus the tax breaks for the rich, and minus the wall street bailout equal a surplus today.  Jon, What you think of my simple math equation?

        1. JON EWALL profile image48
          JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          junko

          The deficits don’t belong to the Democrats, Republicans or the President. The responsibility to pay back  the National Debt is the people. The people, today and future generations, will have to carry the burden.

          The two wars are paid by  money off the trees, we are spreading Democracy in the Middle East. A small amount compared to sending money to foreign countries for their support.

          Prescription drug plan, Government denies seniors getting drugs from Canada saving them sometimes 50 to 75%. Really a help to most seniors  but  not a huge burden on cost because  government pays a portion of the cost.

          Tax breaks for the rich ,lowering of the rate created more jobs and record income to the treasury. Remember everyone got a tax break not a pick and choose operation.

          If 2 or 3% pay 50%+ of the taxes and 50% don’t pay taxes that means that the middle/rich class pays 50% of the taxes. Is that right?
          Think about this:  when the rich make money, what do they do with it?? Hoard or invest it to make more. When the rich make more, that’s good for the government ( taxpayers ).the government digs in and gets 35% of the profits to use to take care of the poor and earmarks. A SEMI JOKE
          When the rich invest in putting people but to work, the people work and can spend. When that happens the government is happy again taking 28% from the worker, filling up the treasury.

          If the government don’t raise taxes, there is more money left in the companies  and workers hands to spend on what they need to enjoy the fruits of their labor.  Sounds a little like capitalism surely not socialism.
          So profit is good, people working is good and companies making money is good.
          A past president once said ‘’ Government is not the solution, Government is the problem’’.

          YOUR  EQUATION IS GREAT, how about mine.
          Makes sense?????

        2. JON EWALL profile image48
          JON EWALLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          junko.

          Check this site  WHERE IS THE MONEY?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_A … ef_Program

          AFL-CIO unions  500 million to obama campaign
          GOLDMAN SACKS   50 million ( employees of company)
          WALLSTREET      A hell of a lot too

  8. Stump Parrish profile image61
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    The deficits don’t belong to the Democrats, Republicans or the President.

    The reasons for the deficits certainly belong with the republicans. What was the financial shape of the country prior to, and after, the repbs and president Cheney took office?

    The two wars are paid by money off the trees, we are spreading Democracy in the Middle East.

    If these two wars were paid for by trees, I would like to suggest that in the future we bill the hemp plants as they are not only better euipped to carry the burden but, make me smile a whole lot more.

    A small amount compared to sending money to foreign countries for their support.

    If you could bring yourself to watch a real news show, instead of swearing your allegence to the faux news network, reality might not be that far fetched of an idea for you to master. That was a pretty good funny if you asked me, you considering relity, lmao.

    Prescription drug plan, under bush the VA could buy drugs fron canada but not the average citizen. they knew allowing the average joe to buy affordable drugs would cost the Americans drug companies money. After all, most countries have a law that drug companies cant rip off their customers. Only conservative, christian America promtes this idea.

    "Tax breaks for the rich ,lowering of the rate created more jobs and record income to the treasury. Remember everyone got a tax break not a pick and choose operation."

    Any chance you might be able to support this claim or should we just accept your word on it?
    The tax cuts you seem to love were implimented 10 years ago. If these tax cuts provide so many jobs, why is un-employment reaching record levels after 10 years of them being in place? Stop repeating lies that have no basis in reality. Firmly grasp the 2 x 4 in both hands and strike yourself firmly in thr forehead. If you still believe the rediculous crap you have been spewing, repeat the previous instrctions until you either wake up or reach a point that it doesn't matter.


    If the government don’t raise taxes, there is more money left in the companies  and workers hands to spend on what they need to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

    And with the way you feel government should be run, the average person will have $17.50 left over to buy gas at $4.50 a gallon. That will take you to the end of the driveway in the Hummer that the repubs gave you up to a $100,000 tax credit to buy in an effort to kill the electric car that could have been making billions for this country. Instead, my pet goat's number one fan brought the federal government to bear and sued the state of california to stop them from improving their air quality, Amen. he stated he never made a decision with out asking god for instructions so that indicates that god is a big fan of pollution and oversized military vehicles being driven by soccer moms and red necks.

    1. lovemychris profile image80
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Amen.

    2. junko profile image81
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well Jon: Stump addressed your equation and I will yield the remainder of my time on this question to  the gentleman from the right, Jon Ewall.

  9. JON EWALL profile image48
    JON EWALLposted 5 years ago

    Stump Parrish

    Before I begin to respond, please note that I am not a right wing as you imply. I welcome a debate and enjoy the comments made to my responses, either good or bad. So  with that said, here we go

    ‘’What was the financial shape of the country prior to, and after, the repbs and president Cheney took office? ‘’
    NEWLY ELECTED George W. Bush with a  Republican control of Congress  inherited a Clinton recession followed by 911 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress voted to go to war  with the approval of the Democrats and Republicans. Congress approved the Bush tax cuts in 2003 which helped turn the economy around .The question is, were you better off in 2006 with a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress than you are today. Yes or No
    The Democrats have had majority control of Congress starting in Jan 2007  up to the recent election of which with the election of Barak Obama have had super majority control of our government. The records show 2006 unemployment 4.6%, 2011 unemployment 9.4% ( fuzzy math ).

    Bush left with a $1.3 trillion deficit of which $700 billion was the Tarp bailouts. President Obama in 2009  had a $1.1 trillion, 2010 a $1.25 trillion and 2011 a  $1.6 trillion deficits ( highest in history ).
    The Obama 2012 budget now in Congress projects a $1.1 trillion deficit.
    Just a side note to think about. The Obama projections have not been close since he took office.

    ‘’these tax cuts provide so many jobs, why is un-employment reaching record levels after 10 years of them being in place? ‘’ Bush tax cuts were in 2001 and 2003
    The tax cuts were a reduction in tax rates, nothing more then that, try to understand  that recently Congress and the Presidents actions only prevented a TAX  increase, no money lost to the treasury as you   are led to believe. Note 2006  unemployment 4.6 , presently 9.4 % and 14 million unemployed.

    A past president once said ‘’ Government is not the solution, Government is the problem’’. Our government is the problem!
    Americans need to wake up to what the Obama administration is all about. The president appears daily on the tube and says such wonderful things ‘’ we must cut where we find it ‘’ ,’’our government must live within it’s means’’ but in realty what he does is just the opposite. He says he will freeze spending for the next 5 years when actually he had increased spending in the 2011 budget ( no budget approved for 2011 under the Democrat  majority congress ) $ 350 billion. Hocus Pokus , one has to be sharp to understand  how Barack Obama successfully fools the public.

    1. junko profile image81
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Jon:  you lost your cool.

  10. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image58
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 5 years ago

    Big industrial houses always are profit-oriented. They are not interested in peoples' welfare. It is the government to act in such a situation.

    In India, when the big business played with the poverty of common people, the Indian government slowly and steadily nationalised the insurance company, railways, banks, etc. and ensured the livelihood of millions of poor workers.

    Why not America do this? False prestige? Is not the welfare of common people more important than the big business and insurance?

    1. junko profile image81
      junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sivagna:  It should be about we the people, but it ain't.  Big business and insurance is destroying the american dream. Too much greed.

      1. junko profile image81
        junkoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Is there a conspriracy by Wall Street, Big Business and Insurance to cause the president to fail?

  11. 0
    IRVING GERSONposted 5 years ago

    Yes!
    The greedy are not happy with what they have.
    They want it all.

 
working