Obama/McCain..... Socialists?

[verothacamaro]

What gives?

I hear both parties accusing one another of having socialistic tax 'plans'....

Don't we live in a somewhat Social Democracy?

Public Schools, Public Works, Public Officials, Paying Taxes and now with our government purchasing Private Entities.....Nationalized companies?

I understand the fear of a Socialistic Economy, where the Government has a much bigger interest in creating stringent regulation as well as garnishing some ownership...

I have no quarrels with Capitalism, but can the US, as unique as it is, create it's own 21st century Economic Ideology?

Mixed Economy? or Much Less Government?

I like the idea of a mixed economy, but fear the corruption of lobby groups that already play a commanding role in legislation.

Germany is a mostly Social Market Economy and have created the most powerful Economic powerhouse in Europe.

So what do you think........?

Should US push for more or less regulation?

Please, No Political bickering unless you provide VALID and EARNEST Points to your discussion.

No "Obama wants to Spread the Wealth" or "McCain wants to give millions to the rich"

It will NOT be Tolerated.

This is purely a discussion on the Economic future of this country and a general debate on the appropriate actions needed.

[Law Grandeur]

[deevergote]

Hooray for the first response to an otherwise intelligent question being a mildly amusing but otherwise worthless animated gif.

The American economic system is largely based on government involvement. We have control over who runs the government, making it a democracy, but the market only has so much freedom. I believe our current economic system would collapse very quickly without government involvement. It's necessary, unless we restructure EVERYTHING (and I don't think we could survive such a restructuring... at least not within our own lifetime... it'll take a long time, if it can be done at all)

[Law Grandeur]

you know you love it

[MadSpleen85]

The American economic system is largely based on government involvement. We have control over who runs the government, making it a democracy, but the market only has so much freedom. I believe our current economic system would collapse very quickly without government involvement. It's necessary, unless we restructure EVERYTHING (and I don't think we could survive such a restructuring... at least not within our own lifetime... it'll take a long time, if it can be done at all)

Agreed. As much as I am against our government becoming more and more involved in the "private" sector, I think in times like we are in now it is necessary. I do believe that had someone stepped in sooner we may not be in the current situation.

I believe with the upcoming election we may get a better look at how the voters think this Democrat majority in congress handled the current situation. We know how it went two years ago when congress went from a Republican majority to the Democrat side, and we have seen where things have gone since.

I live in a mainly Republican district when it comes to the number of registered voters affiliation in this district. The seat has been held for 12 years by a Democrat (Dennis Moore). This election is the first time I remember that there has been a Republican challenger that I think has a good chance of taking the seat. Out of the 4 reps from Kansas this one (Moore) is the only Democrat and the only vote in favor of the Bailout from Kansas.

[XStrategicDeath]

its no in the constitution. and the FED created the mess. we need to get the Gov. out of the economy. The economic system is supposed to be Free Market economics.

[owequitit]

This is a complicated matter, and there is no way I am even going to try to cover it in 1 post. Don't have the time or energy right now.

1) Of the two, Obama would qualify as the more socialistic of the two. He has more or less made it clear that he would like to nationalize more stuff. Not necessarily a bad thing, but hardly surpising given his party and platform. I don't even know that I would call him a Socialist, as much as say he leans further in that direction.

2) We do live in a "social democracy" as SOME oversight is required to keep the lowest common denominators in check. Most people/businesses/enterprises readily and willingly fall into the realm of good self managment, but there are always the few that ruin for everyone.

However, you have to be VERY careful when walking this line, because too far in one direction and people get away with stuff they shouldn't. Too far in the other, and you stiffle their ability to innovate, create, improve and succeed.

I honestly wouldn't call ANY country in Europe an economic "powerhouse" because quite frankly, they aren't. Germany might be a big Kahuna in Europe, but vs the rest of the world not so much. China and India already surpass it, and they are still in the very early stages of development. Japan, Korea, Canada, Russia, most middle eastern countries and probably a few others most likely easily surpass it in terms of economic size. Also, if you look at the number of new businesses, the unemployment rates, and the cost structures of existing businesses due to the business unfriendly tax structures (vs the US), the picture isn't nearly as rosey. It is VERY difficult to start a new business in Germany, it is hard to get a job, and it is hard to run an existing business. All of the German automakers have relatively high cost structures. VW's is by far the highest in the WORLD. They can't reduce it on the labor side because the laws don't allow them to take anything away from workers. They can't save it on the money side, because the taxes aren't passable. So the solution is to either A) build cheaper cars or B) build them somewhere else. That is one reason so many VW's are built in Mexico, and I think Brazil. They can leverage a lot of the tax structures and pay scales in their favor, and buy them down to a more realistic level. All German car companies are relatively boutique in nature as they are all fairly small, and mostly go after a higher end buyer. That is because it allows them to get the margin they need to stay afloat.

I know a guy with 3 IT degrees and he can't even get a job interview. He came to find a job here because unemployment there varies between 15-30%. That is what OUR unemployment was like during the DEPRESSION. We are bitching and ready to lynch Bush over a 6% unemployment rate. How would we deal with this? And there is no quick fix because existing companies aren't hiring, and new companies are so difficult to start and then get murdered by taxes, so they generally aren't started at all.

However, on the other side of the spectrum, Alan Greenspan today made a statement that he underestimated the downside risk on subprime mortgages and believed that the market could regulate itself. He realizes now that he is partially wrong. He CORRECTLY (unlike a lot of the people on this board) placed blame with lawmakers, consumers, and the Fed. Mainly the Fed, as they control the money supply. But, the lawmakers should have seen the disaster BEFORE it became one. I sure as hell did. And they did nothing. Why? There was no catastrophe or call to arms about it, so they went about taking 9 months of vacation, voting themselves pay raises and pretending that all was well in the world.

Clearly, in this case we needed just a little bit more intervention. Common sense would have helped too, but that is just being too optimistic.

3) That leads to my next point, and is part of the reason I am adamantly against any more government than absolutely necessary, and ALWAYS prefer to find private sector solutions with limited government oversight for problems.

The government is HORRIBLY inefficient. It is efficient for what it is, but by the nature of the beast, it can never be as responsive, flexible or available as the private sector. One of the perks of a for profit, or not for profit enterprise is that they still depend on their business model for success. If you don't do the best job possible, then you go under. Period. Yes, they make a little money, but the consumer benefits as well. It is usually a win win. In contrast, the government has to try to please everyone all of the time. It is not possible, and if you have ever worked for the government, you know how difficult it is to get anything done. It takes 3-5 years to do ANYTHING because you have to go through process after process as mandated by law. Then usually, after you spend years going through processes, you have to take the lowest bid, whether it is the best one or not. The lead time reduces return on investment. The lowest bid reduces return on investment because it is usually NOT the best solution, but it IS the cheapest. Then, you run into the inevitable cost overruns because in order to get the bid, the company or provider supplied absolute rock bottom dollar in order to get the bid. People bitch and complain about the "costs" associated with private sector. The problem is that NOTHING is free. The public sector can't get stuff any cheaper than the private sector, so you don't save money there. You either pay on the front end, or the back end. Paying a bill at the time of purchase/going through insurance, etc, is paying on the front end. Paying for it with taxes is paying it on the back end. If the government does it, you WILL pay for it. From a pure accounting standpoint, you end up paying more for the same service in almost 100% of the cases. The upside is that it is perhaps split more evenly among everybody, or so goes the theory. The truth is that the same groups (middle and upper class) still end up bearing the brunt of everything. So basically, in more cases than not, you end up paying more money, for less service, and get less return on your investment. It is not ALWAYS the case, but it is often true, when you start looking at the details of what is being spent where.

4) If you actually look at the details of the "bailout" you will see that it is not nationalization of banking institutions. Far from it, in fact.

A) The banks take a stake by purchasing shares of the banks they are "bailing" out. Those shares have no voting rights in the way the company is run. That right there rules out nationalization because the Feds have absolutely no control over the banks.

B) The terms of the share purchases make it VERY favorable for the government to get its money back within 5 years, and if not, then the banks pay a HUGE premium on the shares in the form of dividends. You can bet that the banks will repurchase the shares prior to the end of the timeframe.

The terms of the bailout were designed to get favorably termed money into the hands of the banks immediately, so that they can get it flowing to the markets where it is crucial for success. They don't want to "own" the banks, they don't want to "run" the banks, and they don't want to be involved forever. They want to get money out there, and get it back. Perhaps make a little money on it in the process. It is designed to stabilize the markets and nothing more.

A similar deal was offered to the airlines after 9/11. They weren't bailed out, they were given "loans." These loans were somewhat similar to the bailout in that they had very good incentive to pay them back. In the end 100% of the loans were repaid, and the government actually MADE $400 million dollars, as opposed to losing billions in costs had they allowed them to go under.

The problem with this is that while we need a stable economy, we have to be careful to not foster neediness on the part of businesses. Part of the risk of free enterprise is failure. We can't allow them the reward of success while completely subsidizing the failure, even though when a large company fails, millions of regular people suffer (the largest owners usually).

In the case of money, it HAS to flow. If it were allowed to work itself out, everything would go down with it. There were clearly some leadership mistakes made on all fronts so now we just have to minimize the damage, and make changes to hopefully prevent it from happening again, without going overboard with paranoia. The law of unintended consequences.

[owequitit]

5) Where I AM for government "control" is in areas that are absolutely essential to our nations ability to produce and innovate. Education for example. Above all else, I think it is a collective responsibility to make sure EVERYONE has the best chance to succeed. After all, you never know who the next Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Albert Einstein etc will come from. It is also a statistical fact that the more educated we are, the more innovative and successful we will be on average. It is no coincidence that some economic gaps that we once held a wide lead in are closing. Our education system has been falling behind for some time now. Another example of a failure of our leaders. It wasn't immediately broken, so it doesn't warrant attention right? Wrong. It must always improve and evolve to accomodate new needs, trends and keep our people the brightest people. Without that, it is only a matter of time before we are overtaken. Luckily, our system has the best blend of helping people succeed, making it easy to start a business, and allowing them to be successful, as a lot of expatriots from other countries (namely Europe, India and Asia) come here to foster their ideas and wealth, because they can't be as successful at home.

In these areas, it doesn't necessarily have to be the government making the choice. They just need to ensure it is available. Probably largely due to money. In many cases, privately run or charter schools are just as good, if not better than public schools, and in many cases they are cheaper. More quality, less cost. Win win.

National defense is another good one. Although personally, the current state of partisanship and blatant media lies in this day and age severely disrupts our countries ability to cohesively defend itself. That will catch up with us, and we WILL learn that lesson the hard way. History has shown that. More than once. Our military will NEVER be effective as a World Police force with tons of political restrictions on it. It is not the nature of military. Military is to kill and blow enough shit up, so that people don't want to fight you. Ugly reality, but it is true. If you aren't going to use it fully and correctly, then don't use it at all, because people are going to die needlessly.

Transportation also comes to mind. They need to provide the infrastructure for goods to flow efficiently. Again, IMO we have seen a degradation with this too due to the fairly recent trend to requiring the lowest bid vs the best product.

I absolutely will NOT stand for entitlements. I don't mind temporary help in times of need as shit happens, but the perpetual generational dependency has got to go. And YES it does exist, I have see it quite frequently with my own eyes. We also need to hold individuals more accountable for their own actions just like the current cry to arms to hold large companies accountable.


In the end, both cases could be made and argued substantially. It really depends on where you stand and how you interpret it. Realistically, some parts of both theories would prove to be true, and some would prove to be wrong. You never know with 100% certainty when or where though. So, I tend to err on the side of maximum choices and individual ability to choose. I am better at making decision for me than the government is.

[verothacamaro]

5) Where I AM for government "control" is in areas that are absolutely essential to our nations ability to produce and innovate. Education for example. Above all else, I think it is a collective responsibility to make sure EVERYONE has the best chance to succeed. After all, you never know who the next Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Albert Einstein etc will come from. It is also a statistical fact that the more educated we are, the more innovative and successful we will be on average. It is no coincidence that some economic gaps that we once held a wide lead in are closing. Our education system has been falling behind for some time now. Another example of a failure of our leaders. It wasn't immediately broken, so it doesn't warrant attention right? Wrong. It must always improve and evolve to accomodate new needs, trends and keep our people the brightest people. Without that, it is only a matter of time before we are overtaken. Luckily, our system has the best blend of helping people succeed, making it easy to start a business, and allowing them to be successful, as a lot of expatriots from other countries (namely Europe, India and Asia) come here to foster their ideas and wealth, because they can't be as successful at home.

In these areas, it doesn't necessarily have to be the government making the choice. They just need to ensure it is available. Probably largely due to money. In many cases, privately run or charter schools are just as good, if not better than public schools, and in many cases they are cheaper. More quality, less cost. Win win.

National defense is another good one. Although personally, the current state of partisanship and blatant media lies in this day and age severely disrupts our countries ability to cohesively defend itself. That will catch up with us, and we WILL learn that lesson the hard way. History has shown that. More than once. Our military will NEVER be effective as a World Police force with tons of political restrictions on it. It is not the nature of military. Military is to kill and blow enough shit up, so that people don't want to fight you. Ugly reality, but it is true. If you aren't going to use it fully and correctly, then don't use it at all, because people are going to die needlessly.

Transportation also comes to mind. They need to provide the infrastructure for goods to flow efficiently. Again, IMO we have seen a degradation with this too due to the fairly recent trend to requiring the lowest bid vs the best product.

I absolutely will NOT stand for entitlements. I don't mind temporary help in times of need as shit happens, but the perpetual generational dependency has got to go. And YES it does exist, I have see it quite frequently with my own eyes. We also need to hold individuals more accountable for their own actions just like the current cry to arms to hold large companies accountable.


In the end, both cases could be made and argued substantially. It really depends on where you stand and how you interpret it. Realistically, some parts of both theories would prove to be true, and some would prove to be wrong. You never know with 100% certainty when or where though. So, I tend to err on the side of maximum choices and individual ability to choose. I am better at making decision for me than the government is.

So would you rather have maximum civil freedoms or maximum economic freedoms?

[verothacamaro]

Agreed. As much as I am against our government becoming more and more involved in the "private" sector, I think in times like we are in now it is necessary. I do believe that had someone stepped in sooner we may not be in the current situation.

I believe with the upcoming election we may get a better look at how the voters think this Democrat majority in congress handled the current situation. We know how it went two years ago when congress went from a Republican majority to the Democrat side, and we have seen where things have gone since.

I live in a mainly Republican district when it comes to the number of registered voters affiliation in this district. The seat has been held for 12 years by a Democrat (Dennis Moore). This election is the first time I remember that there has been a Republican challenger that I think has a good chance of taking the seat. Out of the 4 reps from Kansas this one (Moore) is the only Democrat and the only vote in favor of the Bailout from Kansas.

Subprime mortgages were being given before Democrats took office.

In fact, in 2002, President Bush, along with Republican controlled Congress, pushed the America's Home Ownership Challenge.

In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage. Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

Don't forget the Gramm (yes, Phill Gramm, McCains finance Adviser)-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks to deal in mortgage backed securities.

But then you can look back all the way to 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act, which really didn't create too much activity.

You're placing a whole lot of blame on one side, but failing to place blame all sides, when clearly there is PLENTY of fault to spread around.

[deevergote]

No one side is to blame, and no one side will fix the mess. Whoever takes over for Bush will very likely be seen as a TERRIBLE president, because we're not going to be out of this mess in 4 years. Financial holes are much harder to climb out of than they are to dig!


We can't have total economic freedom. We can't have a totally free market. The government NEEDS some involvement. If they didn't have involvement, we'd have 4 brands running the country: Microsoft, Wal Mart, Pfizer, and McDonalds. If such a small group of businesses gained that much power, the government itself would be in serious danger as well. The US government is a corporate entity... not all that unlike major corporations in the business world.

We will never have a total separation of government and business in this country.

[alifeva]

This is a big huge mess and neither the Obama or McCain administration have a clue what to do next year. We're having a big rally right now, bank stocks are going through the roof, thats because they've all been bailed out. You don't see the homeowners in Nebraska or Kansas going through the roof, because their not being bailed out. Socialism for the rich for the past decade, this is not a new trend. Bernanke picks up the phone for Wall Street every time it rings. 300 million Americans are calling, we get the answering machine. The GOVERNMENT had no right to invest tax payer money in Freddie and Fannie to bail them out. Their budget has been surpassed, who is to pay for all this? Inflation has been on the rise everywhere in the world yet other countries governments and banks have stepped up and taken control of the market with positive results (China, U.K.) Why is ours not making the right decisions, I don't know. Some propose that illegality has been taking place here in the U.S. and people should be jailed!

China and EU has stepped up to fight inflation by raising reserve requirements. I don't see why our way of solving things is to keep printing money. 1987 we used to be an investing nation, 2008 we are one of the largest debiting nations.

This is not a problem bound to go away anytime soon. I think neither our Politicians or Banks have a clue as to solve this mess. I think both administrations read the headlines in the news and tell you what you want to hear.

Rather then chase unicorns, lets look at the facts. "The dollar is doomed and the Fed's days are numbered. The U.S. dollar is a terrible flawed currency as well as P. Sterling. What we are participating in now is a suckers rally, with all due respect. I don't like saying it I'm an American, I plan to get rid of my dollars. Too many investors now are pessimistic of the dollar and this usually leads to the rallies we are seeing now. Can this problem be solved by debasing the currency? Never in history has a countries problem been solved by debasing the currency. Americas problem is much deeper than that." - Jim Rogers

We each need to look at oil, housing, cars, currency, debts, assets, and inflation to come to a conclusion. I've always said to make your own moves. I vote Conservative because I have more room to make my own decisions. But it all depends what type of person you are. If you want to rely on a political administration to solve your woes then by all means vote Obama. If you want to stay behind and save 300 million thats honorable as well.

[owequitit]

So would you rather have maximum civil freedoms or maximum economic freedoms?

You have to have a little bit of both, and in most cases they are NOT mutually exclusive.

[owequitit]

Subprime mortgages were being given before Democrats took office.

In fact, in 2002, President Bush, along with Republican controlled Congress, pushed the America's Home Ownership Challenge.




Don't forget the Gramm (yes, Phill Gramm, McCains finance Adviser)-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed banks to deal in mortgage backed securities.

But then you can look back all the way to 1977 with the Community Reinvestment Act, which really didn't create too much activity.

You're placing a whole lot of blame on one side, but failing to place blame all sides, when clearly there is PLENTY of fault to spread around.

There is plenty of fault to go around.

Also, if you read the details on that, isn't it odd that the completely rich favoring Bush pushes through legislation that helps poor people that otherwise don't have the ability to buy a house?

Also, Greenspan has been the most respected advisor on stuff like this for the better part of 25 years now. He was off in some of his assessments and he came clean about that. The President's working with him (Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush) ALL would have taken any recommendations that he would have given because he was the expert on it, and based on his previous track record, he was VERY effective at his job.

Also, the loans started before the Dems took control, but I also notice that nothing was done to stop it once they got there. The blame for this extends far beyond one side. The Republicans failed, the Democrats failed, Greenspan and Bernanke failed.

The problem is that nobody made a correct assessment, and if we do nothing, EVERYBODY suffers more. Usually everybody benefits more, but nothing is 100%.

[owequitit]

This is a big huge mess and neither the Obama or McCain administration have a clue what to do next year. We're having a big rally right now, bank stocks are going through the roof, thats because they've all been bailed out. You don't see the homeowners in Nebraska or Kansas going through the roof, because their not being bailed out. Socialism for the rich for the past decade, this is not a new trend. Bernanke picks up the phone for Wall Street every time it rings. 300 million Americans are calling, we get the answering machine. The FED had no right to invest tax payer money in Freddie and Fannie to bail them out. Their budget has been surpassed, who is to pay for all this? Inflation has been on the rise everywhere in the world yet other countries governments and banks have stepped up and taken control of the market with positive results (China, U.K.) Why is ours not making the right decisions, I don't know. Some propose that illegality has been taking place here in the U.S. and people should be jailed!

China and EU has stepped up to fight inflation by raising reserve requirements. I don't see why our way of solving things is to keep printing money. 1987 we used to be an investing nation, 2008 we are one of the largest debiting nations.

This is not a problem bound to go away anytime soon. I think neither our Politicians or Banks have a clue as to solve this mess. I think both administrations read the headlines in the news and tell you what you want to hear.

Rather then chase unicorns, lets look at the facts. "The dollar is doomed and the Fed's days are numbered. The U.S. dollar is a terrible flawed currency as well as P. Sterling. What we are participating in now is a suckers rally, with all due respect. I don't like saying it I'm an American, I plan to get rid of my dollars. Too many investors now are pessimistic of the dollar and this usually leads to the rallies we are seeing now. Can this problem be solved by debasing the currency? Never in history has a countries problem been solved by debasing the currency. Americas problem is much deeper than that." - Jim Rogers

We each need to look at oil, housing, cars, currency, debts, assets, and inflation to come to a conclusion. I've always said to make your own moves. I vote Conservative because I have more room to make my own decisions. But it all depends what type of person you are. If you want to rely on a political administration to solve your woes then by all means vote Obama. If you want to stay behind and save 300 million thats honorable as well.

You need to learn how the Federal Reserve works. They don't deal with tax dollars. In fact, they are 100% seperate from the Federal Government. The ONLY relation they actually have to the government is that the Chairman and board members are appointed and confirmed by the government. Other than that they are completely autonomous of each other.