The value of ‘money’ exceeds the value of the items and services for which it is meant to be used as an exchange tool. We also have a cannibalistic marketing system wherein each corporation needs to have enough cash and resources on hand to stand up to hostile takeovers, while small local businesses and industries are unable to compete without cutting pay and services to local employees. Money is being used as a weapon against peoples and governments and it is being “dammed up” like a river and only a small percentage flows downstream to the folks and world that are in need. In search of money, politicians make “ends justify means” and honor and ethics are set aside to appease campaign donars. It has only when we worked together as neighbors and respectful acquaintances, if not friends, where we have excelled as a nation and a people. Money doesn’t exist when the hurricanes strike, or the power goes out for weeks, or earthquakes and fires destroy homes and lives. It gets promised and financial commitments get made, but in the short term, its humans helping humans that save us and make us great.Respectfully,C.
While your statement is true regarding the highest price the market will bare, the lost profit due to higher taxes will be made up by producing the output with the fewest people possible!!! There’s the rub, bub!
Mikefive, you say “If you eradicate the tax deductions, where do you think the price of the products you buy will go?”
Answer: they’ll stay the same. We work in a system called cap-it-al-ism. Look it up. Prices are set by supply and demand, not by what it costs to make things. How much did the price of your Nikes fall when the jobs were shipped to Vietnam? Right. They didn’t.
Obama has bent over backwards to fix this country in a bi-partisan way, and the GOP merely stuck out it’s collective tongues at him with obstruction. FIlibusters, just saying no,I may have created that bill, (like the ACA) but I’m not going to help you.
In both cases, notice the extreme spike that occurred as the economy collapsed throughout 2008. This is what was waiting for ANY new president in 2009 – whether it was Obama, McCain . . . or Winston Churchill.
Obviously, Einstein, a chart for all those years doesn’t fit in the GoComics comment window.The point is that you all are constantly producing “statistics” for “how Obama ruined the economy”. The statistics are incorrect, and you are lying.Go make your own charts Here and Here.
Hey, don’t lump me in with those others you’re growling at: I’m an independent Centrist. Next time, please be specific and name the people you’re growling at so the rest of us don’t get angry at you!
“as an Obamabot you will never acknowledge: during the 2004 election cycle the economy was humming along”I am not an ‘Obamabot’. I DO admit that 2001 to 2008 did exist. Yes, I DO acknowledge that the economy at that point (2004) was ‘humming along’. The GDP growth in the fall of 2004 was 3%. Over the next two quarters, it rose to 4.2%. In early 2006 it was even up to 5.1%My point, however – again – is to look at the TRENDS – not a single snapshot in time.In early 2006 the economy was at 5.1% growth.In early 2007 down to 0.5%.In early 2008 down further to -1.8In early 2009 down to a disastrous -8.9%.
“during the 2004 election cycle the economy was humming along and the incumbent won, and during the 2012 election cycle the economy SUCKS. I don’t have to lie about the statistics, they speak for themselves.”So . . . your points are:1) the economic decline and disastrous collapse of 2006 to early 2009 was not the fault of Bush administration policies, however, 2) it IS the Obama administration’s fault that we have not recovered completely.Regardless of the fact that the statistics show slow recovery since the ‘pit’ was hit in early 2009.Do we agree this is the argument you’re making?
Well, it certainly is refreshing to be debating facts, instead of regurgitated talking points. I appreciate it. In response to your points:a) and b) We never discussed when the Great Recession began. I picked 2006 in my last post because that was the ‘high water mark" of gdp growth in Bush’s second term. Lehman Bros. collapsed in Sep. 2008, and this is generally thought of as the beginning of the panic, although the signs were bad for many months before. Whatever date you pick, I won’t argue.c) Blaming the whole recession on Fannie/Freddie is a tired straw man argument that many people in the financial sector use – including associates of mine IN the banking sector.The fact is that many, many entities were responsible for the recession. One can make a case that ALL of us are responsible, because all of us partook of the illusion that “this party is never gonna end!” (a theme that pops up periodically in US history.) See the next post for a partial list of “Who Caused It.”d ) The Bush tax cuts did NOT increase federal revenues, of course, this is absurd. If I take a pay cut, I am making LESS money, not more. I agree, however, that the policies of the Bush administration (tax cuts, wars, Medicare D), while significantly ballooning the deficit, did NOT create the Recession.e) There is no way to argue that we are WORSE off today than we were, at rock bottom, in early 2009. You cannot even make the case that we are at the same level. The situation in Jan. 2009 was terrifying – gdp growth at -8%, corporations laying off 400,000 people a month, the Dow fallen off a cliff at half of what it is today.You can theorize that maybe we would be further along in the recovery under a President McCain. But you cannot say that we have made no progress. That is factually untrue. Please don’t make me try to embed more graphs into GoComics!I will view the two CSpan links you provided when I get a chance. The Fox link, of course, is non-credible.
Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- Credit Rating Agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s which rubber-stamped these junk credit-default swaps as “AAA”.
- AIG which insured these junk derivatives far beyond the point of rational risk.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Home buyers who took on mortgages that were ultimately beyond their means to repay.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of ALL parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
Nebulous Premium Member almost 12 years ago
That’s totally unfair.The Elephant is doing everything it can to stop anything that might help the economy or job creation. Stop picking on him.
sw10mm almost 12 years ago
But, “It worked”, didn’t it?
Mighty_Mouse almost 12 years ago
Ya gotta respect a cartoonist that lampoons everyone. As they should. And the lampoonees deserve.
zoidknight almost 12 years ago
Obamacare eliminated the tax deductions for your healthcare insurance at work.
chazandru almost 12 years ago
The value of ‘money’ exceeds the value of the items and services for which it is meant to be used as an exchange tool. We also have a cannibalistic marketing system wherein each corporation needs to have enough cash and resources on hand to stand up to hostile takeovers, while small local businesses and industries are unable to compete without cutting pay and services to local employees. Money is being used as a weapon against peoples and governments and it is being “dammed up” like a river and only a small percentage flows downstream to the folks and world that are in need. In search of money, politicians make “ends justify means” and honor and ethics are set aside to appease campaign donars. It has only when we worked together as neighbors and respectful acquaintances, if not friends, where we have excelled as a nation and a people. Money doesn’t exist when the hurricanes strike, or the power goes out for weeks, or earthquakes and fires destroy homes and lives. It gets promised and financial commitments get made, but in the short term, its humans helping humans that save us and make us great.Respectfully,C.
dahawk almost 12 years ago
While your statement is true regarding the highest price the market will bare, the lost profit due to higher taxes will be made up by producing the output with the fewest people possible!!! There’s the rub, bub!
ARodney almost 12 years ago
Mikefive, you say “If you eradicate the tax deductions, where do you think the price of the products you buy will go?”
Answer: they’ll stay the same. We work in a system called cap-it-al-ism. Look it up. Prices are set by supply and demand, not by what it costs to make things. How much did the price of your Nikes fall when the jobs were shipped to Vietnam? Right. They didn’t.
retpost almost 12 years ago
Good cartoon, panel four shows 99% of our problems.
pam Miner almost 12 years ago
Obama has bent over backwards to fix this country in a bi-partisan way, and the GOP merely stuck out it’s collective tongues at him with obstruction. FIlibusters, just saying no,I may have created that bill, (like the ACA) but I’m not going to help you.
corzak almost 12 years ago
Typo. I meant 2001 – 2008, of course.
corzak almost 12 years ago
You are cherry-picking ‘snapshots’ of data which is a fun and easy way to distort economic data. You need to view trendsHere’s GDP Jan. 2008 to today:
corzak almost 12 years ago
Unemployment:Here’s GDP Jan. 2008 to today:
corzak almost 12 years ago
In both cases, notice the extreme spike that occurred as the economy collapsed throughout 2008. This is what was waiting for ANY new president in 2009 – whether it was Obama, McCain . . . or Winston Churchill.
corzak almost 12 years ago
Obviously, Einstein, a chart for all those years doesn’t fit in the GoComics comment window.The point is that you all are constantly producing “statistics” for “how Obama ruined the economy”. The statistics are incorrect, and you are lying.Go make your own charts Here and Here.
Ketira almost 12 years ago
He’s not going to listen, so just do what I do:Flag him instead. ; )
Ketira almost 12 years ago
Hey, don’t lump me in with those others you’re growling at: I’m an independent Centrist. Next time, please be specific and name the people you’re growling at so the rest of us don’t get angry at you!
corzak almost 12 years ago
“as an Obamabot you will never acknowledge: during the 2004 election cycle the economy was humming along”I am not an ‘Obamabot’. I DO admit that 2001 to 2008 did exist. Yes, I DO acknowledge that the economy at that point (2004) was ‘humming along’. The GDP growth in the fall of 2004 was 3%. Over the next two quarters, it rose to 4.2%. In early 2006 it was even up to 5.1%My point, however – again – is to look at the TRENDS – not a single snapshot in time.In early 2006 the economy was at 5.1% growth.In early 2007 down to 0.5%.In early 2008 down further to -1.8In early 2009 down to a disastrous -8.9%.
corzak almost 12 years ago
“during the 2004 election cycle the economy was humming along and the incumbent won, and during the 2012 election cycle the economy SUCKS. I don’t have to lie about the statistics, they speak for themselves.”So . . . your points are:1) the economic decline and disastrous collapse of 2006 to early 2009 was not the fault of Bush administration policies, however, 2) it IS the Obama administration’s fault that we have not recovered completely.Regardless of the fact that the statistics show slow recovery since the ‘pit’ was hit in early 2009.Do we agree this is the argument you’re making?
corzak almost 12 years ago
Well, it certainly is refreshing to be debating facts, instead of regurgitated talking points. I appreciate it. In response to your points:a) and b) We never discussed when the Great Recession began. I picked 2006 in my last post because that was the ‘high water mark" of gdp growth in Bush’s second term. Lehman Bros. collapsed in Sep. 2008, and this is generally thought of as the beginning of the panic, although the signs were bad for many months before. Whatever date you pick, I won’t argue.c) Blaming the whole recession on Fannie/Freddie is a tired straw man argument that many people in the financial sector use – including associates of mine IN the banking sector.The fact is that many, many entities were responsible for the recession. One can make a case that ALL of us are responsible, because all of us partook of the illusion that “this party is never gonna end!” (a theme that pops up periodically in US history.) See the next post for a partial list of “Who Caused It.”d ) The Bush tax cuts did NOT increase federal revenues, of course, this is absurd. If I take a pay cut, I am making LESS money, not more. I agree, however, that the policies of the Bush administration (tax cuts, wars, Medicare D), while significantly ballooning the deficit, did NOT create the Recession.e) There is no way to argue that we are WORSE off today than we were, at rock bottom, in early 2009. You cannot even make the case that we are at the same level. The situation in Jan. 2009 was terrifying – gdp growth at -8%, corporations laying off 400,000 people a month, the Dow fallen off a cliff at half of what it is today.You can theorize that maybe we would be further along in the recovery under a President McCain. But you cannot say that we have made no progress. That is factually untrue. Please don’t make me try to embed more graphs into GoComics!I will view the two CSpan links you provided when I get a chance. The Fox link, of course, is non-credible.
corzak almost 12 years ago
Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:- The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
- Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
- Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
- Credit Rating Agencies like Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s which rubber-stamped these junk credit-default swaps as “AAA”.
- AIG which insured these junk derivatives far beyond the point of rational risk.
- Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
- Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
- Home buyers who took on mortgages that were ultimately beyond their means to repay.
- Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
- Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
- The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
- The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
- An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
- Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of ALL parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
- And yes, Fannie and Freddie.