What if President Obama loses ?

[mkjayakumar]

In the end if Romney wins, we would have a set back of atleast 5 to 10 years on the progress we have made on the EV / Green movement so far. Just my hunch.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

In the end if Romney wins, we would have a set back of atleast 5 to 10 years on the progress we have made on the EV / Green movement so far. Just my hunch.

The last republican in the white house increased the EV tax credit from zero to $7500. So if history repeats, the EV credit would increase to $15k.

 

[DaveEV]

Fiscal cliff was created by the Tea Party wing to put pressure on Obama. It might be interesting to see if this trap can disarmed by a Republican President, or if the Tea Party wing wants to bring down the US government aka "Starve the Beast" regardless who is President.

The fiscal cliff was created by the adults stepping in to deal with runaway budget deficits. We have a massive spending problem. And yes, Big Bird is part of it. A small part perhaps, but he is a part of it.

The fiscal cliff is a direct result of:

1. 2 hugely expensive but not-budgeted or paid for wars
2. A huge unpaid for tax cut
3. Continued loosening of financial regulation which allowed a huge housing bubble to build, banks which were allowed to big to fail
4. The resulting financial implosion which resulted after the bubble popped.

The ways to get us out of this mess:

1. Get us out of these (now in the budget) wars
2. Let the tax cuts expire
3. Put back the financial regulations which allowed Wall Street to gamble with our 401ks

 

[Herm]

I also support the $7500 tax credit but not a rebate.. I would even support a higher amount but please restrict it to US made batteries.

I dont mind the Chinese or Koreans eating dogs or cats, I dont even mind the millions of kittens and puppies that are killed every summer in animal pounds across the US.. still you should neuter or spay you pet!

Its not that easy to get rid of the $7500 Tax credit, it would involve a change to the Tax law and lots of people would fight it tooth and nail. A rebate is much easier to kill since its has to be funded every year.

Dont forget people, the argument you make to your Republican friends is oil independence, dont even mention that CO2 stuff.

 

[mkjayakumar]

The response to 'oil independence' will be 'drill baby drill'. Or even worse, more fracking, shale, tar sands etc..

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I have to roll my eyes whenever people talk about "paying for tax cuts". It starts with the fallacy of baseline budgeting and the idea that everything is first property of the state.

The housing bubble grew out of a credit bubble that started with a cheap money monetary policy put in place to soften blow of a stock market collapse that followed the strong economy of the clinton years, which in reality was based on a mirage. I would argue it was Bush who inherited the bigger mess. Then all the do-gooders piled on and demanded that cheap money be made available to everyone to buy houses, whether they had the ability to repay or not. Moral hazard gave way to good intentions. Nobody was forced to borrow, but plenty of banks were forced - and yes, incented - to lend. Then one more government program after another to try to unwind the mess, borrowing all the way and just making matters worse all along.

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I'm curious, how is "Wall Street" gambling with your 401k? Don't you have the choice of how that money is invested? I do.

 

[WetEV]

Fiscal cliff was created by the Tea Party wing to put pressure on Obama. It might be interesting to see if this trap can disarmed by a Republican President, or if the Tea Party wing wants to bring down the US government aka "Starve the Beast" regardless who is President.

The fiscal cliff was created by the adults stepping in to deal with runaway budget deficits. We have a massive spending problem.

I don't see many adults in Washington, DC, anywhere, especially in the Tea Party wing.

The "Spending Problem" is Social Security, VA and health care for the elderly(Medicare and 80% of Medicaid). That's most of what has grown, and will continue to grow. AKA "entitlements". The rest of government is a smaller fraction of GNP than it was in 1980. Don't believe me, go look it up.

We don't have a "spending problem", we have a "people are getting old problem".

Need a hint? http://www.gao.gov/financial/citizensguide2008.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; See Chart 5 on page 7. That might get you started thinking.

The rest of government has gone from ~15% of GNP to about ~11% of GNP over the past 30 years. That's a spending problem?

The rest of government is defense, FBI, Federal prisons, air traffic control, the 20% of Medicaid for the non-elderly, food stamps, Yellowstone National Park, Big Bird, etc. Paul Ryan's "budget", from an "adult" has the rest of government going to 3% of GDP from the current ~11%, and Defense staying at 4% of GDP. So how does that work, again? The FBI is going to hold bake sales to fund their budget and pay for part of the defense budget as well??? Right. Would be amusing, if people didn't take it seriously.

Gut check time, do you want to default on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Or do you want taxes to increase from the historic 18% and the current 15% over the next 70 years to about 25% of GNP?

Or do you have a third option?

And our tax structure is a mess as well. We collect a smaller fraction of GNP than we have since 1950, and who pays has changed radically. And before you go off on a tangent of making the lowest incomes pay income tax as well as the other taxes they already pay, you probably better read "Wealth of Nations" written back in 1778 by Adam Smith.

 

[bowthom]

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I'm curious, how is "Wall Street" gambling with your 401k? Don't you have the choice of how that money is invested? I do.

I didn't have any choice when our mortgage was sold and repackaged 6 times in 3 months followed by "accounting" errors, lack communication, double track etc. AND, it didn't matter what I had my 401k invested in, losses were almost universal. The controller for one fund just "went missing" for 3 weeks and I couldn't do anything while the bottom fell out.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Gut check time, do you want to default on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Or do you want taxes to increase from the historic 18% and the current 15% over the next 70 years to about 25% of GNP?

Or do you have a third option?

The option I would prefer is to turn the clock back 35 years and not have uncle sam misappropriate 20% of what I earned over all those years so I could have invested in something with real value rather than being left with nothing more than the hope of a claim to future tax revenues with no contract. In spite of what Slow Joe thinks I'm quite certain I would have amassed greater wealth that way than what I'll ever see from SS and medicare.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

I didn't have any choice when our mortgage was sold and repackaged 6 times in 3 months followed by "accounting" errors, lack communication, double track etc. AND, it didn't matter what I had my 401k invested in, losses were almost universal. The controller for one fund just "went missing" for 3 weeks and I couldn't do anything while the bottom fell out.

Why do you care what happened to the mortgage backed securities that funded your mortgage? You got the loan proceeds at closing didn't you? If there were problems with the servicing of your loan that couldn't be resolved through their customer service, get a lawyer and sue them, or withhold the disputed amount and fight the case in foreclosure proceedings if you live in a judicial state.

Regarding your 401k losses, yeah, that's life, markets go up and down. Do you think that more regulation will make it so markets only go up? Besides if you didn't panic at the bottom it's mostly come back. If you kept putting in all along like you should, you're sitting pretty now.

 

[DaveEV]

I have to roll my eyes whenever people talk about "paying for tax cuts". It starts with the fallacy of baseline budgeting and the idea that everything is first property of the state.

You pay for a tax cut but reducing spending by the corresponding amount. If you can't do that - you shouldn't cut the taxes. You know keeping the budget balanced as many are a fan of saying they'd like to do.

The housing bubble grew out of a credit bubble that started with a cheap money monetary policy put in place to soften blow of a stock market collapse that followed the strong economy of the clinton years, which in reality was based on a mirage. I would argue it was Bush who inherited the bigger mess. Then all the do-gooders piled on and demanded that cheap money be made available to everyone to buy houses, whether they had the ability to repay or not. Moral hazard gave way to good intentions. Nobody was forced to borrow, but plenty of banks were forced - and yes, incented - to lend. Then one more government program after another to try to unwind the mess, borrowing all the way and just making matters worse all along.

Banks were more than happy to lend the money - but you missed some key facts there on the real incentives.

Savings banks and investment banks lobbied (successfully) to merge. Investment banks heavily lobbied (successfully) to allow for bundling of consumer loans in addition to letting the banks leverage those loans with basically nothing more than a empty promise. In addition, those same investment banks sold those bundles as highly rated (AAA) investment funds when in reality they were high-risk high-interest rate loans to high risk consumers. Investment banks loves this as they were selling what should have been nearly risk-free funds with great returns on paper, when in reality they were selling high-risk funds. In other words - the investment banks loved handing out credit to high-risk customers since they knew they'd be selling the risk to some other poor schmuck who thought they were buying something safe.

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

OK. Not sure what that has to do with anything here.

I'm curious, how is "Wall Street" gambling with your 401k? Don't you have the choice of how that money is invested? I do.

See above. How can you expect Joe the Plumber to make an educated decision on a prudent 401k investment plan when the experts themselves are not required to give you their best information? Wall Street will game the system in every way they can - they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. Joe the Plumber doesn't stand a chance - meanwhile the banks are guaranteed a return on Joe's 401k plan - yet Joe himself is not unless he wants to settle for 1-2% annual returns which doesn't even cover inflation - never mind building something that one can retire somewhat comfortably on.

 

[adric22]

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I agree - I've heard a lot of people place blames on banks for giving home loans to people who couldn't afford them. But for some reason I always thought it was fundamentally the borrower's job to make sure they were able to pay back what they borrow.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I agree - I've heard a lot of people place blames on banks for giving home loans to people who couldn't afford them. But for some reason I always thought it was fundamentally the borrower's job to make sure they were able to pay back what they borrow.

It should also be the responsibility of a lender to know that one of the risks of loaning money is that you won't be paid back. That risk is supposed to be part of what regulates the process, but when some entity intervenes and says hey Bank of America you need to make that $3M loan for a McMansion to that school teacher so it's fay-er, it's no bueno.

I personally favor making all consumer lending non-recourse. Don't make the payments, lender takes the security, and life goes on.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I agree - I've heard a lot of people place blames on banks for giving home loans to people who couldn't afford them. But for some reason I always thought it was fundamentally the borrower's job to make sure they were able to pay back what they borrow.

not really that cut and dried. mortgage lenders practiced some high pressure tactics along with some misdirection as well. if counting pennies, you cant put the blame entirely on anything, but if analyzing general trends, its up to the banks to do the right thing for themselves and they did not succeed.

 

[AndyH]

Hell - what if he wins?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...fired-at-obama-campaign-office-in-denver?lite

Denver police were looking for a person who shot at a campaign office for President Barack Obama on Friday...Police say there were people inside the office at the time of the 3 p.m. shooting, but no one was hit.

 

[thankyouOB]

in the mortgage scam, the bankers didnt care because they were going to take their percentage for packaging the loan and pass it off to some sucker.
the bankers were eager to qualify anyone who breathed -- set them up to fail - then repackage thousands of loans and sell them off to another sucker.

that was the housing bust.
greedy bankers.

 

[Alric]

Nothing irritates me more than people who borrow money, can't (or won't) pay it back, then blame the lender.

I agree - I've heard a lot of people place blames on banks for giving home loans to people who couldn't afford them. But for some reason I always thought it was fundamentally the borrower's job to make sure they were able to pay back what they borrow.

The banks rigged the system so that consumers were misinformed. Many mortgage owners were assured, and this is part of the "logic" of a 30 year variable rate loan, that the value of their property would keep increasing.

What is missing from all this discussion is the real reason of the financial collapse. Owners could have defaulted on their loan without much systemic damage to the economy. The real problem was the bundling of mortgages as securities that were then sold on the stock market or insured. Compounding the problem was that rating agencies truly failed at their job and mis-rated the bundled securities as very safe which were then bought for pension and retirement plans.

The home owners had no part or say in the bundling of their mortgages into securities which is what caused the financial collapse. This is all on the financial institutions. In my opinion, rating agencies are the ones to blame because they are the watchdogs that should have not allowed this to happen.

 

[WetEV]

Gut check time, do you want to default on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

Or do you want taxes to increase from the historic 18% and the current 15% over the next 70 years to about 25% of GNP?

Or do you have a third option?

... I'm quite certain I would have amassed greater wealth that way than what I'll ever see from SS and medicare.

Maybe you might have amassed wealth to provide greater income than Social Security until you die, and wouldn't have needed Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Yet life is uncertain. You don't know for sure until the day you die. You have paid a maximum of 12.4% into Social Security and 2.9% into Medicare, and about another 2.5% into taxes to cover Medicaid. If you could have invested that in say a 60% S&P 500 fund, 30% long term bonds, 10% gold over the past 35 years, you would have a lot of money by now. All of those have done well. Yet that is not the end of the story.

What percentage can be safely withdrawn from investments? Depends of inflation, rate of return, and how long you live. This is the "initial withdrawal rate", and it is a key number. The past 35 years has been a very very good period for investing. Yet the future is uncertain. Always has been, always will be.

One guide to the future is the past, and the longer look you can get the better off you are. With modern life expectancy, the historical initial withdrawal rate over the past 100 years in the United States has varied greatly, from lows near 0.5% to highs over 10%. The 100 years before that are somewhat harder to estimate, yet it is clear that there were both periods of inflation with low real interest rates, and periods of deflation with high real interest rates. The first would lead to a low initial withdrawal rate, the second to a high initial withdrawal rate. The vast majority of people didn't retire in the 1800's and before, they mostly worked until they died. Retirement savings is mostly a modern thing, outside of higher income groups. Going outside the US, historic initial withdrawal rates vary even more.

A contract is a piece of paper and a promise. Sometimes a piece of paper is just a piece of paper. Sometimes a promise is worth something, and sometimes it's not. It is hard to know if either is really worth something until it is due and paid. A contract with Bernie Madoff, for example, would have been just a piece of paper.

If We the People decide, through the political process, to honor the promise of Social Security (and more importantly medical care for the retired), and you have a low real return on investments, then having a steady Social Security check and Medicare and/or Medicaid picking up the doctor's bills might well be very very important to you sometime between now and the day you die. Even with a much larger than average retirement savings.

If We the People decide, through the political process, to completely default on the promise of Social Security, then regardless of your return on investment, your investments (and the kindness of others) will be the only thing keeping food on the table, and bills paid, after you stop working. It might go back to the "good old days" of 1900 and before when most people worked until they died. That is, after all, what happened before the Progressive period of American history, and is still the case in most of the world.

 

[thankyouOB]

what wetev said.

what i resent most about comments from candidates for the presidency today is talk about the 55-year-old cut off for changes to Medicare, as well as discussions about the basically solvent social security program. it doesnt have a payment problem for more than 20-25 years.

in the next debate, OB should very clearly support social security and medicare. too many Democrats have been too weasel-word on Social Security and some won't defend it.
Saying you wont support significant cuts is saying nothing; one man's "no significant cut" is another man's 10% reduction.

I call BULLSHIT on the idea that folks such as myself, who are above 55, just dont care what happens to medicare or social security for those under 55.
i do care and care allot about that. i am not part of the the i-got-mine crowd. i want my children and my colleagues and my younger friends to all get medicare at 65 and ss — undiminished — when they reach their 60s.
this is about being in this together and caring that they have dignity in their lives. it is not about having two classes of workers, with two classes of benefits and pay scales, as they do at Caterpillar and many other places.

raise the contribution cap from $106k.
then do the math and tell us how that works out.

Medicare is a payment and insurance system with the lowest overhead of any insurance program. Medicare overhead is about 3%, while insurers' are around 20%. the problem is the how much we are charged and pay for medical care, which is twice any other first-world country.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

a cost analysis of that 35 year investment scheme does not pan out. for one thing; the ability to invest in that kind of stuff relatively cheaply is a fairly recent phenomena. $9.99 online trades have not been available forever now. also, the ability to invest a few dollars at a time is also something relatively recent.

but one thing that is even tougher is gaining the type of personality that is able to take a small piece of their check every week and save it in ANYTHING...