Who's more "out of touch"?

[J. J.]

But how can it be class warfare when the wealthiest will thrive as a consequence of the middle class prosperity progressive populism will more, effectively, deliver? The Golden Age of Capitalism was a great period for ordinary people and, as a logical consequence, the wealthiest thrived

As soon as you talk about wealth, and there has been a lot of that on this thread, you are talking about class warfare.

Romney is rich.  He became rich by making good business decisions over a 20 year period.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That actually shows that he was "in touch" with consumers, who ultimately made him rich.

Yes, he is. Democrats, generally, have to steer close to the centre, indeed, Bruce Bartlett has made the case that Obama is a moderate conservative. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, understands that in addition to cuts in spending, taxes are going to have to be raised, especially on those with the means to be able to pay more

The great problem is that Obama has increased spending (unlike Clinton, on a net basis).  

Today, unemployment is 8.2%.  That is the lowest that it has been since February 2009.  The problems are:

1.  It is 0.1% lower than when he took office, not a big improvement.

2.  It took huge expenditures to get it there.

3.  After those huge expenditures, unemployment went rather dramatically.

4.  It looks like, with the recent numbers, unemployment will be increasing.  

This is about Obama 44 and possibly Romney 45, so Bush 43 really isn't that important, but let's look at it just for fun.  From 2/01 until 2/04, unemployment was low, but increased to 6.3, up 2.2 points at its high point. Obama, despite spending a lot more money, had the same 2.2 points.  The difference is that Bush 43 numbers continued to decline, and did so until 2008.  What drove up unemployment was the housing crisis of 2008.

Job creation was half of what was expected last month.

[Democratic Hawk]

But how can it be class warfare when the wealthiest will thrive as a consequence of the middle class prosperity progressive populism will more, effectively, deliver? The Golden Age of Capitalism was a great period for ordinary people and, as a logical consequence, the wealthiest thrived

As soon as you talk about wealth, and there has been a lot of that on this thread, you are talking about class warfare.

Romney is rich.  He became rich by making good business decisions over a 20 year period.  There is nothing wrong with that.  That actually shows that he was "in touch" with consumers, who ultimately made him rich.

Yes, he is. Democrats, generally, have to steer close to the centre, indeed, Bruce Bartlett has made the case that Obama is a moderate conservative. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, understands that in addition to cuts in spending, taxes are going to have to be raised, especially on those with the means to be able to pay more

The great problem is that Obama has increased spending (unlike Clinton, on a net basis). 

Today, unemployment is 8.2%.  That is the lowest that it has been since February 2009.  The problems are:

1.  It is 0.1% lower than when he took office, not a big improvement.

2.  It took huge expenditures to get it there.

3.  After those huge expenditures, unemployment went rather dramatically.

4.  It looks like, with the recent numbers, unemployment will be increasing.   

This is about Obama 44 and possibly Romney 45, so Bush 43 really isn't that important, but let's look at it just for fun.  From 2/01 until 2/04, unemployment was low, but increased to 6.3, up 2.2 points at its high point. Obama, despite spending a lot more money, had the same 2.2 points.  The difference is that Bush 43 numbers continued to decline, and did so until 2008.  What drove up unemployment was the housing crisis of 2008.

Job creation was half of what was expected last month.

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

But, for now, at least, unemployment concerns me more than deficits

[J. J.]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation. 

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

[Democratic Hawk]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation.  

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble than its worth

[J. J.]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation.  

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble than its worth

Well, not liking it harkens back to a Socialist economy, perhaps even beyond Foote and Benn.  Obama not addressing this directly for nearly four years is a very good indication of how "out of touch" he is.  It will be driven home over the summer.

[Democratic Hawk]

[

And what pray was the road out of the 'Great Recession'? Austerity . The ARRA hasn't added anything near to the gross federal debt that the Bush tax cuts ($3 trillion)

Stabilization, especially in the housing loan market, not job creation.  

By its nature, once the government program is finished, the jobs it created are finished.  It have potential as a short term method for dealing with employment, but sucks completely long term.  So the government either has to start more projects or watch unemployment rise.

Put the money into securing these loans.  It is a long term investment, but it will ultimately revalue the housing market, and create jobs.  It will also cost less long term, easing the crowding out of the private sector.

Obama has seen the US through a much steeper economic downturn than the recession of 2001. I don't doubt it would have been worse without TARP [GWB's one saving grace]

Most of TARP funds were paid off, some at a profit:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP

It was hugely unpopular, but it worked and it had limited fiscal impact on the national debt.

Do you know J.J? I'm beginning to wonder if our cultural fetish with home ownership hasn't been more trouble than its worth

Well, not liking it harkens back to a Socialist economy, perhaps even beyond Foote and Benn.  Obama not addressing this directly for nearly four years is a very good indication of how "out of touch" he is.  It will be driven home over the summer.

I'm not even going there , J.J.

[J. J.]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

[Iosif]

JJ needs to learn how to use commas.

[TheGlobalizer]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

[J. J.]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

They all do have a major asset, a home.  There are a number of economic and, yes social, good in helping people maintain a capital asset.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

You make a very fair point given that growth in the financial and real estate sectors wasn't healthy growth (or certainly a big chunk of it wasn't). This growth was due to a reliance on debt and products built on debt, which was assisted by an easy availability of credit

And I'm no libertarian (except on guns). I just think someway, somehow Anglo-American capitalism needs to be better than it is. Though you and I are certain to disagree on that

My conscience right now is just not comfortable with public spending cuts given the UK's 8.4% rate of unemployment and I'm critical of the liberal welfare model, at least, compared with the Nordic (social democratic welfarist) and the social market (Christian Democratic/conservative welfarist) models

Seriously, wishing death on my enemy would be kinder than wishing them unemployment

Anyway, a left-leaning Christian Democrat is what I am. Take it or leave it!

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not even going there , J.J.

You are to the point of complaining about home ownership.  I'm not sure if even the former Viscount Stansgate would agree with that!

I complain about home ownership, too.  As a libertarian, I feel the government has done far too much to ensure that people who do not have assets and have limited income are indebted on a major purchase like a house.

They all do have a major asset, a home.  There are a number of economic and, yes social, good in helping people maintain a capital asset.

Which is great . I doubt I'll need to buy one myself since I'll inherit the one in which I live but I know people who are mortgaged to the hilt, and believe me they've not much left to spend on wider private sector goods and services. There is more to an economy than housing

In fact, when the time comes, I'm selling up and going travelling. See the world a bit. Nothing to keep me in Durham

[J. J.]

Which is great . I doubt I'll need to buy one myself since I'll inherit the one in which I live but I know people who are mortgaged to the hilt, and believe me they've not much left to spend on wider private sector goods and services. There is more to an economy than housing.

Housing, however, is the key.  It generates assets, and money for greater investment.  It basically helps expand the pool of assets that can fund other things.  You might own a house outright, but because you don't have to meet payments, you can:

1.  Use the money to buy products, and airline tickets count. 

2.  Save it, and create capital for others to buy houses, or start businesses.  That, in turn, will employ others.

This isn't a rich people thing; it is a very middle class approach.

[True Federalist]

JJ, the number one problem with housing as the preferred asset class is that the six decade period we had from roughly 1945-2005 where real estate generally appreciated in the long term without having to develop or redevelop it was a historical anomaly brought about by Federal intervention in the housing market.  Even with continued intervention, it is hard to see that resuming any time soon, nor would it be.  I'll grant that for some people a 30-year mortgage acted like a long-term Xmas Club account that forced financially inept people to save despite themselves, but then home equity loans came to give the inept a chance to spend their savings anyway.

[J. J.]

JJ, the number one problem with housing as the preferred asset class is that the six decade period we had from roughly 1945-2005 where real estate generally appreciated in the long term without having to develop or redevelop it was a historical anomaly brought about by Federal intervention in the housing market.  Even with continued intervention, it is hard to see that resuming any time soon, nor would it be.  I'll grant that for some people a 30-year mortgage acted like a long-term Xmas Club account that forced financially inept people to save despite themselves, but then home equity loans came to give the inept a chance to spend their savings anyway.

I think the appreciation was much longer term, possibly dating from the late 19th century.  It tended to be a long term asset, but one that was used daily.

The question is the type of intervention.  What I'm looking at is basically a securing of that asset.