PBS says obama economy better than when he took office

http://www.bloombergview.com/articl...d-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year-

The top five banks -- JPMorgan, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. - - account for $64 billion of the total subsidy, an amount roughly equal to their typical annual profits (see tables for data on individual banks). In other words, the banks occupying the commanding heights of the U.S. financial industry -- with almost $9 trillion in assets, more than half the size of the U.S. economy -- would just about break even in the absence of corporate welfare. In large part, the profits they report are essentially transfers from taxpayers to their shareholders.

You are a hypocrite. You will rant and rave about corporate welfare but you don't say (*)(*)(*)(*) about the massive amount of corporate welfare going on under the Obama WH. You won't say anything because you are a partisan hack and your guy can never do any wrong.

Now stop spouting you inane nonsense about how wonderful everything is because it is all bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Corporate profits hit new records all the time. Do you know anything about economics\? We have a larger population now AND stuff costs more do to inflation which means that more money is spent. This happens ALL THE FREAKING TIME and is not something you crow about. It is about as retarded as saying that the country is doing great because we sold more food last year...........no (*)(*)(*)(*) there are more people to consume the food.

 

Maybe you can explain the supposed subsidies referred to in the article -- what they are, how they are paid for by taxpayers. Seems like they're making a couple pretty big leaps of inference there.

Are you taking drugs? You call me a "hypocrite" for because I "rant and rave about corporate welfare"?

Please quote and link to my post where I said anything about "corporate welfare."

Jeezus, what are you babbling about?

False. During the recession corporate profits were no where near all time highs.

Do you know anything about economics? If inflation was driving up their costs, their profits would be lower, not higher.

U.S. corporate profits hit new highs last year, driven by the tight lid firms have kept on hiring and spending almost five years into the economic recovery.

A closely watched measure of after-tax corporate profits rose to $1.9 trillion in the final three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Corporate profits stood at 11.1% of gross domestic product, up a bit from the prior quarter.

The latest uptick underscored a factor that has dogged the economy since it emerged from recession: Many companies are guarding their cash rather than putting it back into the economy in the form of new hiring.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303325204579465060613770396

 

When Obama took over, there were 700,000 more people every month that you couldn't find in the grocery store checkout lines.

Republicans have a solution for your shrinking food dollar. Just don't eat. In a couple months, they'll tell you that you look much better.

 

On that I agree, their notion that the tax increase would ruin the economy is BS, like all their doomsday predictions.

 

I'm all for market economics. Problem is, it leads to capitalism. And capitalism is just another word for centralized control, redistribution, AND the death of markets. Six of one/half dozen of the other.

 

Disagreed. What economic system works better than Capitalism? Certainly not Socialism.

 

We're not talking about degrees of betterness here. We're talking about capitalism, the Destroyer of Markets. Do you still wish to disagree?

 

Capitalism has given more wealth and increased the standard of living for billions of people. More so than any other system in history. Does it have warts? Yes, but it's still the best thing around. I was hoping you had something better to offer than simply complaints.

 

Complaints? I'm just trying to help you clear up your confusion between market economics and capitalism. Let me put it in terms you might understand. The first is good, the other is b-a-a-a-d.

 

In your opinion. Let me guess, you're living in a country made rich by capitalism and are unwilling to move to one that doesn't support capitalism. Am I correct?

 

Capitalism is a great engine of innovation and economic growth that works by providing fabulous rewards to those who provide what the market wants. These rewards incentive work, effort, and risk taking that provides innovation and efficiency. We should not destroy that element.

The problem with capitalism is that it does not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence. Capitalism doesn't care if they starve to death or bleed to death because they couldn't afford health insurance. Capitalism is only interested in profit. Capitalism doesn't care if our skies and waters and beaches are polluted or that our resources are mismanaged or that the unprotected are abused. Capitalism just cares about profit.

Liberals like me recognize that profit and incentive are important and need to be maintained for an effective economy. But we also believe people have a value that is not simply based upon the current market value for their skills or services. We recognize that clean air and water have values over just profit margins. We like the fact that hordes of the aged or infirm or temporarily down on their luck are not living under freeways begging for food at stoplights, that our air and water are cleaner, that workers and investors and consumers have some basic rights and protections against sweatshops and dangerous working conditions and ripoff and frauds, that people don't bleed to death outside a hospital because they don't have health care coverage, and that a little boy doesn't have to forego education because his parent is too poor. And so we believe that society is enhanced when you provide social programs and regulations that limit some of the defects of laizzes-faire capitalism.

And so in our view, to have an optimal system for Americans, we have system that provides great wealth and rewards for production and adding economic benefit, but as quid pro quo for living in a society that provides this benefit, those who make great wealth share a portion of it for systems that apply to the benefit of others so they have the same opportunity, or at least a marginally decent standard of living. And a benefit to all is we don't have to see grannie living in a cardboard box under the freeway.

 

All true, which is why Capitalism needs to be regulated. Not strangled, just fenced in. That's the purpose of government, to be the playground monitor, a referee. Not to be a participant as the Socialists and others who support a centralized, planned economy.

 

Agreed. Capitalism needs regulation of various sorts.

But in terms of wealth distribution, we haven't been regulating it very well over the past 30 years.



And it is hurting our economy.

I doubt most liberals here want a centralized, planned economy. Maybe some do.

 

Wealth distribution? Giving away money? When did that ever solve anything. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Please elaborate.

When they start talking about "wealth distribution", it seems they do. Capitalism doesn't work if you, as government, take all of the profits and redistribute to all those who don't want to work or want to be professional college students for 40 years.

 

It's being made poor by capitalism but let's not quibble about that, eh? Let's quibble about how a country as rich as any country ever in terms of resources (you know, those that come out of the ground) could be made rich by capitalism.

 

C'mon, man, you and I both know that there has been plenty of innovation and economic growth without the fabulous skim.

 

Wealth distribution is the distribution of wealth in the United States between the richer and poorer. Closely related income distribution, probably the more accurate term.

As the chart I post demonstrates, over the past 30 years, or since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution, the share of the nation's income going to the 1% has increased from about 10% to about 20%.

This chart shows the income going to the top 10%:



Conversely, the bottom 90% are getting about 50% of the nation's income today, compared to about 65% about 30 years ago.

With a gross national income of about $15 trillion, that is about $2.2 trillion going to the upper 10% instead of the middle class.

Since the richer tend to save more of their money and the middle/poorer spend more, the result is great engine of spending, the middle classes, don't have the income drive a strong recovery and economy.

Who said anything about taking all of it? I'm just talking about reversing the trend of more and more of the nation's income and wealth going to the fewer we've since since the Reagan "trickle down" revolution.

 

I agree that there was and is plenty of incentive without the massive shift of income and wealth we've seen over the past 30 years.

But you absolutely do need to reward those who take risk, innovate, and work hard.

 

Unfortunately, those aren't the people being rewarded anymore.

 

How do you plan to reverse the trend. While agree there is a problem, having a central government take then redistribute doesn't sit well with me either for many historical reasons.

 

Reverse trickle down. Decrease taxes the middle/poorer classes pay instead of increase them. Increase the taxes the very wealthy pay instead of decrease them. Enable unions instead of weakening them. Increase the MW instead of letting it decrease thru inflation. Eliminate the tax favoritism of investment income over earned income. Broaden the scope of OT laws instead of weakening them. Broaden transfer payments to the middle class instead of cutting them back. Increase educational grants and lower interest rates. Just a few things off the top of my head.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure they are.

 

Of course the economy is doing far better now than it was when Obama took office. That's silly to even ask. We have gone from losing 800,000 jobs a month to gaining 250,000 or so a month and you can't tell which of those things is better? Get real. When Obama took office, practically everybody I know had recently been laid off, was taking salary reductions or was living in terror of getting laid off. Today, nobody I know is.

 

I'm not a big fan of government imposing arbitraty taxes or mandating pay scales, but I do believe "We, the People" should be able to stand on equal footing with powerful entities like government and corporations. Unions have been defanged by multiple organizations and regulations. Time to drop that. Government, IMO, shouldn't be a player in this game, it should be a regulator balancing the game with an eye toward fair play.

Handing out money is wrong. It's the same mistake a rich parent makes in spoiling their children with high priced gifts instead of teaching them the value of earning something and self-respect.

 

Government was a major player in the "trickle down" policies that started this massive transfer of income and wealth away from the middle class to the richest.

Work based increases are most of what I proposed, but when you have millions more people wanting a job than there are jobs, that doesn't help them, or help the economy by boosting the middle class.

 

OUTSIDE OR RECESSIONS AND DEPRESSIONS CORPORATIONS SET NEW PROFIT RECORDS ALL THE TIME! It isn't that complicated to understand and if you even took econ 101 you would know that. More people are born and thus more people spend and by more products. This isn't rocket science and yet you apparently think that it is some amazing feat that only occurs under Obama.

The article explained it quite clearly enough. I realize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the economy as indicated by your surprise that corporations have record profits. *Gasp* Did you know that more people bought clothing than the year before......shocking isn't it.

They obviously pay you by the post because no one is buying your drivel. Your precious Obama is going down in flames and more than likely will end up being even more unpopular than Bush was and that is an astonishing feat in and of itself.

I have to put up with this partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*) at school and although I thoroughly enjoy embarrassing those idiots it gets annoying after awhile.