For all you Obamamaniacs: I have some questions for you

Trying to debate with pizzaman is like trying to debate with a roll of toilet paper. It all gets flushed down the toilet when you start talking about facts. You know you can't demand facts from th eObama supporters.

He really has no idea what he is tlaking about and is in way over his head.

And the radio isn't the only one tha tlike Obama. All media outlets jus tlove him.

But, I do have to say, pizzaman is a prime example of why we need to stray away from anonly 2 party system and start looking at some of the 3rd parties out there. Pizzaman plays the game like its an us vs. them mentalitly. Democrats v. republicans. What ever happened to the United States of America?

 

Ain't that the truth. Sometimes I wonder why the loony left still posts on this forum, it's like every confrontation they get in they're outta there when the discussion gets a little deeper than mere opinion. You'd figure eventually they would realize they don't have anything and just stop getting involved in stuff they know nothing about.

 

You've answered your own question. Inflation is a sign of a growing economy. Deflation is a sign of a shrinking economy. Obama has turned deflation into inflation, ergo turned a shrinking economy into a growing economy. He truly is the One!

 

Obamanation, it would be nice if you would actually post your real opinions instead of faking an dumbama supporter.

 

How do you figure that inflation=growth? There are two types of inflation: monetary and price. Monetary inflation is when more money is created and hence, the value of all existing money drops. Price inflation is when the market price of a good rises, usually after increased demand or decreased supply. Both show the relative value between how much goods are currently valued vs. how much the currency is currently valued, but there is a huge difference in the two as monetary inflation simply means there is more money in circulation and has nothing to do with the amount of goods being produced or consumed.

With the Fed and Treasury recently having created a lot of new securities and money, a lot of the inflation we are seeing and will continue to see is monetary. This does not mean growth- do you really think printing 1 trillion more dollars will mean we have more growth?

Even price inflation does not tell us that there is growth- it simply shows that demand for goods is higher or that supply is lower. Right now we are seeing inflation in commodities. This is in part due to increased demand in foreign countries. It is also due to the relative strength commodities have and will continue to have against the USD, which has been weakened. With countries like Russia and Brazil recently announcing they will be start a partial move away from the USD reserve and with China also contemplating similar moves, it is only natural that commodities, which many of them are looking at, would see price inflation.

How can you can inflation=growth? Look at the actual production numbers and you will see that they are not good. Furthermore, if growth really was good, then why would unemployment be so high? In fact, the argument that Obama's stimuli actually hurt the market are starting to become very reasonable. For example, look at this graph with predictions from the Obama admin. on unemployment numbers with and without the stimuli: http://c2.api.ning.com/files/JZlFF0...YvOc6X/stimulusvsunemploymentmaycorrected.gif

Everything in blue is by the Obama admin. The red is the actual unemployment data.

Do you really think this man is good for the economy? If so, please give an explanation that actual makes sense as to why he is good for it.

 

No he doesn't. He's actually a conservative playing a liberal. Although, if he plays too long he may freeze as one thus loosing precious brain cells. It's kind of like sitting to close to the TV and going blind.

 

In a nutshell, that pretty much sums it up. For me, since pizzakid is on ignore, the nonsense in this thread is cut by half.

Filter out the BS, and things are much easier to digest here.

They should change the call signs for NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, PBS, etc., to JIZZ because that's pretty much all these networks do when it comes to Barry.

I'm not sure I agree... We just need the conservative party to be, "THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY" again.

I don't want things "bi-partisan". Nothing ever gets done. I'd prefer to see it one way. The right way. All a third party does is invites weirdos like Nader into the fray.

 

I know Obama is good for the economy because he tells me so. Several times in recent weeks Mr. Obama has been talking about "signs of recovery". I really don't need any charts or graphs because they are meaningless compared to the words of wisdom from the big guy upstairs. All those numbers, charts, facts and figures are, as pizzaman likes to say, white noise. He truly is, "The one".

/mumbles something about its all Bush's fault.

 

It's taken me a while to figure you out. You're like one of those guys that is really on the other side, but is kinda pretending to go the other way in some quippy strange satirical way.

Took me a while to sense the sarcasm and underlying agenda. Funny!

 

I haven't been in the P&R section for a while, so I hadn't read any of Obamanation's posts until about a couple days ago, but now I see that he is really against Obamamania. I was wondering why he chose a screen name that sounds so much like abomination...

 

I wonder if he read the book... "ObamaNation" By Corsi... Good book. I have it and read it last Thanksgiving. Well worth the money!

I'd recommend this book to anyone that wants to fully understand what Obama is really all about. From his upbringing, his idol Saul Alinsky, community organizing, growing up on welfare and staying there...

Great book!!!

 

Oh, I will have to check that out some time- thanks for sharing.

And I am still looking for a response from you Obama supporters...

 

I think Obama has taken some good initiatives but left many loopholes in them. On the face of it, the ideas seem good and even logical, but overall, they need to be worked on if they are to be truly effective.

I shall delve into 2 of them. let me know your thoughts.

1) Making cars more fuel efficient: This is obviously a great initiative. If cars give an average mpg of 35 it will lower our dependence on foreign oil. But, there is a flip side to this. In the short run, oil prices will go down. But, with lower oil prices, the demand will increase in developing countries. So, over time the price of oil will go up again. Now, in the US, the cost of cars are expected to go up an average $1300 per car due to these new fuel efficiency policies put through by Obama. So in 15 years or so, Americans will be paying more for their cars and still be paying the same for oil, if not more.

Solution: Promote research for alternate energy sources for cars and for general use. Obama is not doing enough in this area. We need to look at harnessing wind energy and nuclear energy.

2) Multinational tax: Obama is going to put an additional tax on corporations that export jobs overseas. Again, on the surface, it seems like a great idea. More taxes will force the companies to reduce the amount of jobs they shift overseas. But, as the CEO of Microsoft put it, it will actually increase outsourcing. Here is why:

US has the second highest domestic corporate taxes amongst developing countries. So, even if you increase taxes for multinational who outsource, it still falls cheaper for them to outsource jobs to countries with lower taxes. In fact, they only pay taxes to the US when they transfer the money back here. As a result, they will delay the transfer and reinvest the money in the foreign country itself in order to gain a higher market share and increase profitability. Some of it will be transferred here, but most of it will be reinvested internationally.

Solution: balance this tax increase with a decrease in domestic corporate taxes. less taxes on companies will bring back jobs and the cost of products will be lower as well. Companies don't really pay more taxes, they just shift the burden on the public by increasing costs. Unfortunately, that means less sales for them domestically because of higher costs, so they focus their sales and marketing on selling goods in foreign countries.

Again, Obama has done a few good things, but most of them seem like good initiatives on the surface and are not good in the long run.

that said, i don't think the republicans did any better. The biggest failure of the republicans over the last 8 years is that they abandoned their own ideologies. They went for big government and increased spending within the business sector while lowering regulations.

 

Yet in the same breath he encourages the sale of one of the largest automakers in the world to a foreign company. Any thoughts on where the manufacturing jobs will go...

 

Many of his ideas appeal or seem "logical" to the unknowing, but to those who understand economics, they know that it is not so. Let me explain by responding to your two examples below:

If Obama did set those regulations on mpg, the effect would be more over a few years than the short run because there is no way he can enforce that immediately because it takes time for car companies to change their cars and the factories that make them. So, you would see still higher gas price in the short run anyway. Also, a lot of the high price is currently driven by world demand as you noted. That will exist even if these cars are more fuel efficient. If you really want to reduce gas prices, the best option would be to cut the gas taxes. That would not only reduce prices, but would also reduce deadweight loss in the energy market.

The better option concerning the green cars would be to simply let the market deal with it. As the world becomes more environmentally conscious, consumers are already starting to demand more green cars and over time, companies will naturally produce more energy efficient cars. By forcing them to do it right now, the Obama administration is only hurting production, which in turns leads to less employment as well.

I would much rather have the private sector do this research than the government and the bureaucracy that comes with it. If Obama cuts regulations and taxes, these private firms will have more capital and will automatically put a part of it into R&D.

It is all about the Laffer curve. I wrote about this very topic on my blog recently (you can read it by clicking my "recent blog" link.) What we need to do in order to spur employment and production is to cut taxes, not raise them. Outsourcing is largely the product of high taxes and regulations imposed by the government- it can be drastically cut down with tax cuts, not with tax increases.

Domestic corporate tax cuts are good, but I would say we should cut both taxes. That will allow for less deadweight losses, more production, more employment, and depending on where we are on the laffer curve in the overall market, it could also mean increased tax revenue.

The big government really hurt the markets more than the deregulation helped it and as a consequence, things got worse. Obama is only pushing more big government and it will only make things worse in the long run just like Bush and Greenspan's policies did.

 

Seriously pizzaman, what was the point of posting the same picture twice, one which doesn't even have any purpose?

 

Ah, the beauty of ignore. Pizza never did figure out how to use the multi-quote feature. We're still working on his capitalization. One thing at a time.

 

I don't think that the government should take on the role to research alternate fuels. But they should provide incentives to private companies to fasttrack research on this. They should also promote more usage of high ethanol fuel for the short run.

Ironically, i always considered myself a democrat, but the more i delved into politics, the more i realized that Republican ideas make more realistic sense. however, the downfall of the republican party is that they have abandoned many of their own principles and they seem to be filled with really immature people who come off as hicks. These people do well to garner the support of the base but alienate independents. And, IMHO, it is the vote of the independents that decides elections.

Bigger government has never worked and it never will. There is not enough incentive for people within government to be more efficient. I believe in regulations for private companies though. Corporate greed in the US is too much. That said, there should be lower taxes on them too, so that they bring back more jobs to the US. Low domestic taxes, high taxes for outsourcing jobs.

The government should also encourage LEGAL immigration for educated people. Giving asylum to uneducated people sounds great on paper but saps the resources of the country. We could always use more educated people here.