Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(09-07-2016, 04:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Reaganomics worked great for me in the 1980s and I was making less than median income.  Or perhaps your definition of "rich" is "anyone above poverty level"?

I've heard that from more than just you. It is total absurdity. Rather than look at what is working for the people as a whole, you only look at what worked for yourself. Nonsense. You know better than that. Most people lost ground under Reaganomics; that's the fact. Their income stayed flat while expenses rose through the roof. Both parents had to start working. Opportunities shrivelled up. Jobs began their exodus overseas, and companies started concentrating. Small businesses were eaten up. We were well on our way to the mess we are in now, and that ignorant folks think Trump can fix because he knows how to game the system for himself. Absurdity; surreal blindness. Total ignorance and suicide.

Quote:The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back.  Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.

"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/

It's clear the auto companies were well managed under bankruptcy and are now profitable, and that helped the economy. I wish however that the USA would have imposed a stiffer timetable for conversion to clean energy cars. But Obama has put on many requirements and incentives since then that are a good start toward what we need.

As for the bank bailouts, most of those were paid back as well, and they certainly kept the banks and financial system from collapsing. Had they collapsed, we faced economic armageddon; total collapse, and generations of poverty and war. My problem with the bailouts is that the banks were not broken up at the time. We needed to end the banks too big to fail system, and the people seemed ready for this at that time. But Bush and Obama were too cautious, so the banks have continued much of their previous behavior, thus endangering our system again. Obama did impose stiffer requirements on the banks for the loans, at least, and did pass some financial reform that (unless some dufus Republican like Trump gets in) will prevent another too big to fail crash and will at least allow the government to break the banks up as Sanders advocates.

(09-07-2016, 05:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 04:59 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Reaganomics worked great for me in the 1980s and I was making less than median income.  Or perhaps your definition of "rich" is "anyone above poverty level"?

I've heard that from more than just you. It is total absurdity. Rather than look at what is working for the people as a whole, you only look at what worked for yourself. Nonsense. You know better than that. Most people lost ground under Reaganomics; that's the fact.

It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

It only stagnated after two decades under Bush II, then plummeted under Obama.

Here's the actual, factual data, drawn from Census sources, though Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the same thing:




I only gave my personal account because I know that the left is immune to actual facts.  Perhaps some bystanders will learn something, though.

(09-07-2016, 05:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

Warren Dew Wrote:The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back.  Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.

"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/

You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

Only for the rich. You obviously did not watch the videos I posted.

Quote:(Warren)
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back.  Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.

(me)
"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/

Quote:(Warren)
You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

You provided no source for this, and there was nothing about this in the article I linked. So I found this:

"The bailout of GMAC started Dec. 29, 2008, with a $5 billion infusion in the last days of the Bush administration, but that grew to $17.2 billion as the Obama White House moved to save Detroit. By keeping auto finance arm alive, the administration sought to keep car and truck sales moving and auto dealerships open.

With this week’s sale, the GMAC investment yielded $2.4 billion in profit. The government no longer owns any part of the auto industry, Treasury officials announced.

Although the overall bailout efforts turned a profit, the auto rescue did not. With Friday’s announcement, taxpayers were left with a $9.5 billion loss. Most of that came from General Motors, which paid back about $39 billion of the $49.5 billion invested.

But with auto sales booming and the Big Three Detroit automakers recovered, the Obama administration now points to the Detroit rescue as one of its biggest triumphs.

“The American auto industry is on track for its strongest year since 2005,” Mr. Obama said. “And we’ve created about half a million new jobs in the auto industry alone.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/busine....html?_r=0

I wonder why they call it the "Detroit rescue" though. I don't think there's much if any of the auto industry left in Detroit.

Quote:As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

I don't think large trucks are such a major part of production. All the other vehicles are regulated according to their carbon footprint.
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regula...f10014.pdf

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

Only for the rich. You obviously did not watch the videos I posted.

If you actually looked at the graph, it was about the median income - income of the people at the middle of the income scale.  Oh, but I forgot, the left considers everyone who isn't in poverty to be "the rich".

As for videos, videos are for people who can't read.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:(Warren)
The government took a huge loss on the auto equity; that will never be paid back.  Frankly, though, economic stimulus is not about being paid back; the problem with the bailouts is that they didn't actually help the economy.

(me)
"We’ll note that losses from automaker loans were expected to be higher, and the action taken by the Obama administration resulted in GM and Chrysler paying back the bulk of their loans." This site concludes that the car companies paid back at least most of the Obama loans, but not those made earlier under Bush.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...loans-it-/

Quote:(Warren)
You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

You provided no source for this, and there was nothing about this in the article I linked.

Sorry, here's a source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-...WL20131029

"U.S. reports $9.7 billion loss on General Motors bailout"

No surprise that The New York Times distorts the numbers by omitting the losses from loans that were converted to equity.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why they call it the "Detroit rescue" though. I don't think there's much if any of the auto industry left in Detroit.

You got that right.

(09-08-2016, 02:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

I don't think large trucks are such a major part of production. All the other vehicles are regulated according to their carbon footprint.
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regula...f10014.pdf

You consider the Jeep Cherokee to be a "large truck"?  It's everyday SUVs like that that are, under the Obama rules, permitted to guzzle twice as much gas as small sedans.  Or maybe you missed the part where "regulated according to their carbon footprint" meant vehicles with a larger carbon footprint are allowed to guzzle more gas - specifically, proportional to length and width with an extra factor of 1.5 for SUVs.

(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

It only stagnated after two decades under Bush II, then plummeted under Obama.

Here's the actual, factual data, drawn from Census sources, though Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the same thing:




I only gave my personal account because I know that the left is immune to actual facts.  Perhaps some bystanders will learn something, though.

You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

That chart is misleading because most of the increase in income has gone to the wealthiest 10%, for the bottom half wages have been stagnant since the 70s.

(09-08-2016, 07:13 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-07-2016, 09:17 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]It's always amusing when a leftist uses the word "fact".  The word doesn't mean what they think it means.

In fact, inflation adjusted income, after being moribund in the 1970s, grew strongly under Reagan, retrenched for a few years under Bush's anti-Reagan economic policies, as I mentioned, and grew again under Clinton/Gingrich when Reagan style economic policies were continued.

It only stagnated after two decades under Bush II, then plummeted under Obama.

Here's the actual, factual data, drawn from Census sources, though Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the same thing:




I only gave my personal account because I know that the left is immune to actual facts.  Perhaps some bystanders will learn something, though.

You may not be aware of it, but equity and loans are not the same thing.  The loans got paid back; the equity - that is, the shares the government bought - plummeted in value and were sold for a 10 billion dollar overall loss.

As for "green", the Obama administration changed EPA mileage rules to encourage the production and purchase of large passenger vehicles by allowing them to guzzle more fuel than smaller vehicles, a perverse incentive that not even the Bush administration managed to put into effect, perhaps because Obama thought, incorrectly, that that would save his investment in Government Motors.

That chart is misleading because most of the increase in income has gone to the wealthiest 10%, for the bottom half wages have been stagnant since the 70s.

The chart is a median, not a mean; it shows where the average earner was, irrespective of where the top 10% was.

I do agree that a chart of the mean, which would average in the top 10%, would likely show a stronger increase, and possibly an increase even in the Bush/Obama years, although a lot of the accumulation of wealth in the top 0.01%, where the issue of maldistribution of wealth really is, would not show up in any income graph.