What is Obama's economic plan?

[Scales]

I have to ask this question because I don't understand, Obama is becoming a Master Discordian.

By my logic:

* American money is not backed by anything (like gold).

* Under the current banking system, the more money that is printed, the more the debt raises.

* Obama wants to bring the economy out of recession by financial stimulus, essentially printing more money.

Maybe a better question would be, why is increasing national debt a feasible option for pulling a country out of recession?

If anyone has an explanation I'm all ears.

[Azeuron]

to quote Stephen King.... Oh Discordia.

[Scales]

to quote Stephen King.... Oh Discordia.

Indeed.

[candyman]

He is only saying things that people want to hear...it is easier that way. Could he really fix it without all of this crap? Yeah, he probably could but that would require them to sit down and devise a plan and that is not possible because most of the people that voted for his got the message that it would all happen right away...and if he doesn't start signing crap right away he will end up just like Bush.

I don't think people realize that WE the people need to help the economy...it isn't just some new, hip president that will do everything.

My opinions:

Let GM on their own...they probably won't fail but they will fall pretty hard

Wake up and smell the roses...our president may be "cool" and not old but, he probably couldn't run a McDonalds very well

Line up all the professional players, shoot them, and use the money they would have been paid to do something good

Release any extra Agent Orange, CX, and Raccoon piss that we have into Hollywood...maybe they will stop talking out of their asses when they are dead

[candyman]

Oh I also forgot the part where he funds everything off of cigarette taxes...it's magical because you can tax it without any questions and it will pay for everything!

Gov. David A. Paterson

That dude up there is helping Obama...by trying to explain to the Native Americans, who he calls Indians, that they really don't have the right to sell cigarettes and other things for tax free...

[Nightgaunt]

It really is as simple as doing away with the Federal Reserve. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Dude, I warned everyone what was going to happen.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Odd (or some might say scary) thing about the Federal Reserve is that its not federal and there is no reserve to speak of. Its a huge smoke and mirrors engine. (But thats a bit off what I wanted to get at...)

Obama's plan is complicated from what I read. (any economic plan of scale is pretty complicated.) Even just listening to one speech there ends up being 900 different parts to it. They talk a lot about investment in education and infrastructure, efficient energy... very long term fixes. Needed, but long term, not likely to do anything soon and then throwing money at "working families" various, types of businesses, cutting down on the tax breaks for the higher brackets, enlarging various "welfare" programs, a FUCKTON more government.... there is a series of books in here somewhere I'm sure. Pretty much the same thing you'd expect from democrats. Not saying that's a bad thing, its just not anything earth shatteringly new, other than the, yet again enlarging of government involvement in the private sector. (GRRR)

In that "town hall meeting" they had a few days ago he (I thought insanely from a political standpoint) stated something along the lines of "it won't happen in this term", clearly saying don't expect things to get fixed anytime soon regardless of what we do. Which is probably accurate, if strange coming from a politician.

In terms of the "printing money to fix an economic problem" :

1. The printing of money to pay bills or stimulate economies has long pissed me off.

It feels like an illegal tax to me. Print more money, thus "taxing" all our existing money by making it (theoretically) worth less. (Econ 101)

2. I've heard at least two commentators say that in practice it doesn't necessarily work out the way I've always thought about it above or in the textbooks.

That is, some other factors come into play if they print the shit with the right spin on it, that it psychologically does the stimulus trick and doesn't really, in the end, devalue the currency the way we thought it would. That is the excitement it creates overrides the fact that they just increased the money supply and from a laymans perspective we'd assume that would automatically make it worth less than it was the day before. (Not that I buy this just yet, but it sounds plausible.)

"Fiat" Money: (that is money not backed by anything tangible, like gold.)

That's a hard one. Fiat currency valuation has its value based on overlapping types of psychological trust, not anything solid. Which is a difficult thing to grasp no matter how hard we think about it. Maybe similar to trying to grasp the time-space continuum. Its real, but its also real hard to "get."

[Scales]

I don't think people realize that WE the people need to help the economy...it isn't just some new, hip president that will do everything.

It really is as simple as doing away with the Federal Reserve. Anything else is smoke and mirrors.

No arguments here.

Dude, I warned everyone what was going to happen.

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Even though I think the presidential voting system could be ran better, but that's its own theoretical headache.

Odd (or some might say scary) thing about the Federal Reserve is that its not federal and there is no reserve to speak of. Its a huge smoke and mirrors engine. (But thats a bit off what I wanted to get at...)

Obama's plan is complicated from what I read. (any economic plan of scale is pretty complicated.) Even just listening to one speech there ends up being 900 different parts to it. They talk a lot about investment in education and infrastructure, efficient energy... very long term fixes. Needed, but long term, not likely to do anything soon and then throwing money at "working families" various, types of businesses, cutting down on the tax breaks for the higher brackets, enlarging various "welfare" programs, a FUCKTON more government.... there is a series of books in here somewhere I'm sure. Pretty much the same thing you'd expect from democrats. Not saying that's a bad thing, its just not anything earth shatteringly new, other than the, yet again enlarging of government involvement in the private sector. (GRRR)

In that "town hall meeting" they had a few days ago he (I thought insanely from a political standpoint) stated something along the lines of "it won't happen in this term", clearly saying don't expect things to get fixed anytime soon regardless of what we do. Which is probably accurate, if strange coming from a politician.

In terms of the "printing money to fix an economic problem" :

1. The printing of money to pay bills or stimulate economies has long pissed me off.

It feels like an illegal tax to me. Print more money, thus "taxing" all our existing money by making it (theoretically) worth less. (Econ 101)

2. I've heard at least two commentators say that in practice it doesn't necessarily work out the way I've always thought about it above or in the textbooks.

That is, some other factors come into play if they print the shit with the right spin on it, that it psychologically does the stimulus trick and doesn't really, in the end, devalue the currency the way we thought it would. That is the excitement it creates overrides the fact that they just increased the money supply and from a laymans perspective we'd assume that would automatically make it worth less than it was the day before. (Not that I buy this just yet, but it sounds plausible.)

"Fiat" Money: (that is money not backed by anything tangible, like gold.)

That's a hard one. Fiat currency valuation has its value based on overlapping types of psychological trust, not anything solid. Which is a difficult thing to grasp no matter how hard we think about it. Maybe similar to trying to grasp the time-space continuum. Its real, but its also real hard to "get."

I see. I was hoping there was some simple substance to Obama's agenda I was missing, but I guess not.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

No arguments here.

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Even though I think the presidential voting system could be ran better, but that's its own theoretical headache.

I see. I was hoping there was some simple substance to Obama's agenda I was missing, but I guess not.

Unfortunately , every time I think things are simple... and dig a bit, they turn out not to be. Regardless of how much my dad (fire breathing "everything is common sense, two sentence answers boy!" type) tries to convince me (or rather himself) that there is a simple answer/plan/reason for everything.

But as usual anything I say could be up to 99% bullshit. With a 1% margin of error. heh.

[TitsMcGee]

I frankly don't think he has a plan, he's just winging it.

[Rev.Reverence]

I think he is doing whatever THEY tell him to.

I have to ask this question because I don't understand, Obama is becoming a Master Discordian.

By my logic:

* American money is not backed by anything (like gold).{It is backed by lead }

* Under the current banking system, the more money that is printed, the more the debt raises.

* Obama wants to bring the economy out of recession by financial stimulus, essentially printing more money.

Maybe a better question would be, why is increasing national debt a feasible option for pulling a country out of recession?

If anyone has an explanation I'm all ears.

..that's all I have.

[candyman]

I frankly don't think he has a plan, he's just winging it.

and due to engine failure he has taken a steep leftist bank approach...possible landing gear failure...outcome not looking good...please put your tray tables up and your seatback in full upright position, then grab your buttocks and hold on tight!

[Scary Guy]

I think he is doing whatever THEY tell him to.

I think he's got experts to inform him on the best options and then he decides based on what they say. One of the things I like about him is he appears to do whatever HE wants and isn't just a puppet on strings.

However I was hoping he would screw the rich and use that to help everyone. He's instead screwing the middle class to help everyone.

I'm glad I don't work, or I'd be really pissed off.

The other problem is he's printing more money which is causing inflation. I'd really like it if he put us back on the gold standard or something.

[candyman]

I think he's got experts to inform him on the best options and then he decides based on what they say. One of the things I like about him is he appears to do whatever HE wants and isn't just a puppet on strings.

Well, he talked about how he didn't think that smoking is a bad thing...but now he has sided with the anti-smoking people...probably because they have money.

People that are two faced=people that crack down on tobacco, a legal and taxed product, and then go and start setting marijuana loose...

I think maybe...he should get a clue...cuz my trigger finger is itchy and my rifle wants out of its box...

[Scary Guy]

Eh, smoking sucks, but MJ is OK by me.

Also the anti-smoking people probably have less money than the cig corporations.

Although it's not like he needs any money now. He's already in office unless he's saving for 2012 early. Maybe he's just making good on past promises to them. Or maybe he just said that he didn't care to get the smoker vote and now anyone caught lighting up will be executed by Homeland Security or as I like to call them das Mutterland Schutzstaffel.

[ttogreh]

Keynesian economic theory is nuts. It's so nuts, that no one who lives in the world of micro finance would ever believe it could work. However, macroeconomic forces march to the beat of a very different drummer.

Oh, wait... what is Keynesian economic theory?

Essentially, if the private economy cannot or will not spend enough to create wealth, the government can spend money it does not have in order to create economic activity that it can tax to pay for what it owes.

Yeah... public un-money is spent to create money to pay for the un-money. Absolutely insane. Except it has worked. Twice.

See, FDR was paying lip service to this utterly untested idea during the great depression with the (at the time) massive projects that he commisioned, the Tennessee valley authority, the Hoover dam, and several other projects. Then, World War Two came home, and allowed FDR the ability to spend like a drunken sailor. This kicked the economy into high gear, and the massive deficits and debt that the Federal government incurred was paid off by the 1960s.

Still, even though it worked, no one wanted to credit Keynes with the victory. Everyone wanted to say that the massive domestic spending done by FDR did not kill the depression, but rather the massive foreign policy spending done by FDR (and later Truman) killed the depression. Except, they don't say it that way, because if they did, they would sound like morons. Instead, they say it this way:

"No, the new deal didn't end the depression, it was World War Two that ended the depression".

Then, forty years later, after the failed policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter failed to kill "stagflation", Reagan enacted Keynesian economic policy with Reaganomics, which brought about massive deficits, and renewed economic activity. No one wanted to admit that Keynes won again, because it sounds absolutely nuts.

Obama is once again spending money that does not exist in order to create real money that he will then tax to pay for the non existent money. It worked twice, and no one believes it will work again.

[Scales]

Interesting points.

It'll definitely be interesting to see what change the Obama administration creates if the bulk of America can ever get out of their public spell.

[candyman]

Eh, smoking sucks, but MJ is OK by me.

Also the anti-smoking people probably have less money than the cig corporations.

Although it's not like he needs any money now. He's already in office unless he's saving for 2012 early. Maybe he's just making good on past promises to them. Or maybe he just said that he didn't care to get the smoker vote and now anyone caught lighting up will be executed by Homeland Security or as I like to call them das Mutterland Schutzstaffel.

Anti-smoking groups are paid by the tobacco companies. And they will get more once they convince the "Indians", whom I respectively call Native Americans, that they have been wrong in selling things without tax and that they owe billions to the states and the feds.

Smoking does suck...but so do our chances of living a truly healthy life even without it. Also, people at my smoking bar do not stumble all over the place knocking shit over, they don't get all over the women, and the place doesn't smell like urine and vomit...so I think that I am fine with my tobacco...

[candyman]

Keynesian economic theory is nuts. It's so nuts, that no one who lives in the world of micro finance would ever believe it could work. However, macroeconomic forces march to the beat of a very different drummer.

Oh, wait... what is Keynesian economic theory?

Essentially, if the private economy cannot or will not spend enough to create wealth, the government can spend money it does not have in order to create economic activity that it can tax to pay for what it owes.

Yeah... public un-money is spent to create money to pay for the un-money. Absolutely insane. Except it has worked. Twice.

See, FDR was paying lip service to this utterly untested idea during the great depression with the (at the time) massive projects that he commisioned, the Tennessee valley authority, the Hoover dam, and several other projects. Then, World War Two came home, and allowed FDR the ability to spend like a drunken sailor. This kicked the economy into high gear, and the massive deficits and debt that the Federal government incurred was paid off by the 1960s.

Still, even though it worked, no one wanted to credit Keynes with the victory. Everyone wanted to say that the massive domestic spending done by FDR did not kill the depression, but rather the massive foreign policy spending done by FDR (and later Truman) killed the depression. Except, they don't say it that way, because if they did, they would sound like morons. Instead, they say it this way:

"No, the new deal didn't end the depression, it was World War Two that ended the depression".

Then, forty years later, after the failed policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter failed to kill "stagflation", Reagan enacted Keynesian economic policy with Reaganomics, which brought about massive deficits, and renewed economic activity. No one wanted to admit that Keynes won again, because it sounds absolutely nuts.

Obama is once again spending money that does not exist in order to create real money that he will then tax to pay for the non existent money. It worked twice, and no one believes it will work again.

There are tons of different theories and policies. Something can work once or a few times and then fail the next. You can blame people all you want, but until it works they have the right to make fun of it or say that it will fail. I find it funny that so many of the people that tell me that belief in a god is stupid...and then they tell me to believe in Obama or some plan...so what am I supposed to believe in anyways? Am I supposed to believe at all? Once it works you can flame all the people you want and say "HA! IT WORKED!"...but until then the only thing that can be said is that it worked before, and it MIGHT work again.

Just like condoms, theories and policies can work wonders, but sometimes there is a flaw in their making or use that turns them into useless crap.

[Scary Guy]

Anti-smoking groups are paid by the tobacco companies. And they will get more once they convince the "Indians", whom I respectively call Native Americans, that they have been wrong in selling things without tax and that they owe billions to the states and the feds.

Hey, pale face, get off my land.

[Mizuna]

"Fiat" Money: (that is money not backed by anything tangible, like gold.)

That's a hard one. Fiat currency valuation has its value based on overlapping types of psychological trust, not anything solid. Which is a difficult thing to grasp no matter how hard we think about it. Maybe similar to trying to grasp the time-space continuum. Its real, but its also real hard to "get."

Good old fiat money. People say it has no value because it is not backed by a physical asset, such as gold, however gold itself is byno means backed by a useful asset such as food. Gold itself is very similar to to fiat money in the sense, that well, it is only worth as much as another is willing to compensate you for it. I personally prefer fiat money, the basic principle that currency itself is the embodiment of trust for future bartar is the reason behind this. I mean honestly, how do people feel more safe being backed by one form of future potential than being backed by another form. Little silly in the end if you ask me.

A little off-topic but I have been hearing a lot of blame on the value of large organisations balance sheets on international financial reporting standards. Its rather funny, American's and Brits believe fair value should be abolished along with the idea of substance over form. The reason for this is they feel it is creating a continous downward spiral for the value of assets (including intangible aka. brands, mastheads) and profits. I guess that the US should have adopted them instead of still using US GAAP as well as UK using their own standards, because now they have to use IFRS for iternational investors, and well, how things are going, its sadly decreasing investment. Enough of talking crap no one would find interesting and I'll get to the point, got to love it how we the people continue to help the recession along the train tracks.

P.S. Think this recession sucks? Try being Japan, they been in one since the 1990's.

[Mizuna]

Keynesian economic theory is nuts. It's so nuts, that no one who lives in the world of micro finance would ever believe it could work. However, macroeconomic forces march to the beat of a very different drummer.

Oh, wait... what is Keynesian economic theory?

Essentially, if the private economy cannot or will not spend enough to create wealth, the government can spend money it does not have in order to create economic activity that it can tax to pay for what it owes.

Yeah... public un-money is spent to create money to pay for the un-money. Absolutely insane. Except it has worked. Twice.

See, FDR was paying lip service to this utterly untested idea during the great depression with the (at the time) massive projects that he commisioned, the Tennessee valley authority, the Hoover dam, and several other projects. Then, World War Two came home, and allowed FDR the ability to spend like a drunken sailor. This kicked the economy into high gear, and the massive deficits and debt that the Federal government incurred was paid off by the 1960s.

Still, even though it worked, no one wanted to credit Keynes with the victory. Everyone wanted to say that the massive domestic spending done by FDR did not kill the depression, but rather the massive foreign policy spending done by FDR (and later Truman) killed the depression. Except, they don't say it that way, because if they did, they would sound like morons. Instead, they say it this way:

"No, the new deal didn't end the depression, it was World War Two that ended the depression".

Then, forty years later, after the failed policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter failed to kill "stagflation", Reagan enacted Keynesian economic policy with Reaganomics, which brought about massive deficits, and renewed economic activity. No one wanted to admit that Keynes won again, because it sounds absolutely nuts.

Obama is once again spending money that does not exist in order to create real money that he will then tax to pay for the non existent money. It worked twice, and no one believes it will work again.

<Claps> I am glad someone posted something about Keynesian, although I do not agree with your view on it in the "crazy" sense. Thats because what I learnt is that it doesn't just boost the private sector but more importantly boosts the public. Its more about putting money in the peoples pockets not the organisations, which is how it has come across from what you have said. I guess it really comes down to what professor has explained it to you due to their bias I suppose. My one believed it to be the best thing since sliced bread, I guess a little positive stance has warmed onto me.

I find it funny that micro feels that way about macro theory, I understand it to an extent but, individual behaviour doesnt by any means reflect the masses. If you know anything about micro you should know pretty much everyone enjoys to pork barrell, smart for one, really really stupid for everyone else.

P.S. If by spend you meant expenditure and not investment then you might as well ignore half of my first comment.

[Rev.Reverence]

I think he's got experts to inform him on the best options and then he decides based on what they say. One of the things I like about him is he appears to do whatever HE wants and isn't just a puppet on strings.

However I was hoping he would screw the rich and use that to help everyone. He's instead screwing the middle class to help everyone.

I'm glad I don't work, or I'd be really pissed off.

The other problem is he's printing more money which is causing inflation. I'd really like it if he put us back on the gold standard or something.

Ah..the same experts that sat by & watched this happen?

..as for the middle-class goin' down......I am glad right now 'cause we are still poor.

....but I'm pretty sure that as soon as the middle-class is dissolute...these experts will pull some shit out of their asses to fix it...(they hid it there)

[Rev.Reverence]

Hey, pale face, get off my land.

Yeah!