Let's ask the million dollar question- Can ANYONE fix much of what's wrong?

[Zarn]

There's not as much wrong with the country as people seem to think there is. America is just procrastinating on finishing up the patchwork.

Anyone in this thread who doesn't realize that is just Canadian.

We need a lot more than patchwork...

[© tweed]

no, liberal democracy is a failure.

[Gustaf]

It's always amusing when people call the most prosperous, stable and free system the world has ever seen a total failure.

Also, high labour costs in no way prohibit keeping jobs. Labour cost is a meaningless measure unless related to productivity.

[© tweed]

stable?  there are systemic crises every decade or two.  monarchism was far more stable.

[courts]

Not really but even just using the veto pen and ordering troops back home would be massive steps up.

[opebo]

The US has, though many people seem to be forgetting, been in a worse economic crisis before.  We got out of that one, we can get out of this one.

That took 20+ years, a 4-term moderately left-leaning president, and World War II, Scott. We're unlikely to get any of those things.

It's always amusing when people call the most prosperous, stable and free system the world has ever seen a total failure.

It isn't stable at all, that's the point Gustaf - capitalism always leads to catastrophic 'busts', and deflationary depressions.

Also, high labour costs in no way prohibit keeping jobs. Labour cost is a meaningless measure unless related to productivity.

Oh christ, everybody knows this, Gustaf.  We've all had Econ 101.  Now stop trotting it out.  US labour costs are still much too high to be 'competitive' even factoring in for productivity.

[The Vorlon]

It's always amusing when people call the most prosperous, stable and free system the world has ever seen a total failure.

Also, high labour costs in no way prohibit keeping jobs. Labour cost is a meaningless measure unless related to productivity.

To borrow a phrase from that quaint British chap: "Worst system in the world, except for all the rest...."

[greenforest32]

Not unless we scrap the neoliberal economic system that got us into this mess in the first place.

[pbrower2a]

Solving what is wrong with our economy is going to require a firm commitment to low-yield, long-term investments that people can't walk away from except at the cost of personal ruin.  The scavenging stage of the recovery that began in the spring of 2009 is over. The gems are no longer to be found.

Reform of our K-12 educational system requires new attention to college preparation of teachers -- and the solution is a return to the norm of liberal arts as the undergraduate emphasis in colleges and universities.

We need an ethical revival in our executive suites; we need executives who feel some responsibility to their subordinates and to customers. Again, that requires a return to the norm of liberal arts as the undergraduate emphasis in colleges and universities. 

We need to restore respect for the creative mind as the cause of innovation. We need to restore some dignity to the professions of engineering and scientific research. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

9-9-9

[rwoy]

No.  There is no single individual capable of fixing the economy, the messed up government, the broken educational system, the impossibility of the medical care system in this country, etc.

[Wonkish1]

Well I guess I shouldn't be surprised at some of the answers on this thread.


Look if it wasn't for Europe, China and a hard fallout in Japan, Brazil, and Australia in the coming future I would be forecasting 3-4% US growth around election time next year.

But for the reasons I just listed above that wont happen for at least another year after that.

Its kind of funny to see the responses that act like a president has his fingers in everything and that they "manage" an economy, and that is almost as funny as those that call a president nothing more than a "figurehead" stuck in machine that doesn't change at all. And even more hilarious than that is those that act like a president has to bring the economy out of mess because an assumption that things don't improve with time.

So lets be clear bureaucracies while capable of doing some real economic damage(and in a few cases recently they have) they mostly tweak around the edges when you take into account the entire economy. Bills have wide ranging impacts and can cause massive shifts in the economy, but only a couple of very impactful bills occur in each administration. Otherwise there really isn't that much shifting of money between program to program or agency to agency within the budget or appropriations process, but total spending changes and tax rate changes matter a lot. Outside of the things I just listed the president doesn't have any other tools to "manage" the economy.


But people naturally pull back and improve their personal balance sheets. Slowly as time goes on the position gets better. If nothing changed from this point until 4 years from now we'll be for sure looking at growth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The question itself is based on a falacy created by the lie that FDR got us out of the depression.


The main priority is to help the economic without doing harm. The long term deficits, the poorly crafted healthcare law, Dodd-Frank and the other overeaching measures that will prove ineadequate in fixing what they are primarily focused on reforming, will assuredly succeed at doing harm in the short and long term.

In the Great Depression, FDR passed some important and needed reforms like the FDIC. However, he did too much, too fast on the whole and this hurt the overall recovery. When the gov't was forced to pull back on it's spending, the underlying economy folded like a house of cards in 1937 and 1938.

Stability and long term reform is the answer. As Alice Rivlin said on a Sunday show back in July, Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

[Politico]

Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

[courts]

Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

You presume far more sanity and fairness from the political class than actually exists. More likely the country will gradually get poorer and poorer and regulations will continue to pile on the productive (politically unconnected) small businesses until the government can no longer afford to consistently enforce them. See much of modern Latin America for an idea what that will look like.

[Politico]

Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

You presume far more sanity and fairness from the political class than actually exists.

Romney, baby! Romney!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

He isn't pandering enough to you 5%?

[courts]

I'm a proud 2%er in this case I guess. Something tells me this was another 'weighted' poll though.

[courts]

Obama should haved tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

You presume far more sanity and fairness from the political class than actually exists.

Romney, baby! Romney!

If MA is anything to go by get ready for a lot of new "fees" heading your way.

[Daniel Defense]

Theres not much difference a change in President is going to make, but somehow voters think so. The problem is actually the voters themselves.

[pbrower2a]

Obama should have tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

Long-term deficit reduction program in early 2009? When your house is burning down, then restocking the pantry is inevitable, but obviously it is not the first thing on your mind.   We had what looked like an ominous parallel to the economic meltdown of 1929-1932, and if you look at the S&P we were about halfway through something very similar. In case you were asleep during the appropriate part of the history lesson, it was the latter part of the meltdown that wrecked so many lives.

We should have stayed out of Iraq, but our glory-seeking President wanted to make his mark on American history. Wars create deficit spending whether they are necessary or foolish. Do you want a real constraint on budget deficits? Then have a Constitutional amendment that limits American participation except when declared or when participation in such wars are the result of the decision of an international body (such as the UN or NATO), and mandates tax increases or the imposition of new taxes during such a war.   We could have gotten a declaration of war against al-Qaeda with a super-majority, we would have gotten through the invasions of Grenada and Panama quickly enough, and we would have had full justification for invading Iraq in 1991 because of resolutions of the UN. We would have been in the Korean War but not Vietnam.

Deregulate? Deregulate what?  And how sure are you that President Obama won't win a second term?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Deregulate? Deregulate what?  And how sure are you that President Obama won't win a second term?

Guys, we obviously need to deregulate PG&E so that there will be more pipeline explosion cleanup jobs. We need to deregulate BP so that there will be more oil rig explosion cleanup jobs. We need to deregulate workplace safety so that there will be more funeral director jobs, and so on. These are all job killing regulations.

[courts]

Obama should have tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

Long-term deficit reduction program in early 2009? When your house is burning down, then restocking the pantry is inevitable, but obviously it is not the first thing on your mind.   We had what looked like an ominous parallel to the economic meltdown of 1929-1932, and if you look at the S&P we were about halfway through something very similar. In case you were asleep during the appropriate part of the history lesson, it was the latter part of the meltdown that wrecked so many lives.

We should have stayed out of Iraq, but our glory-seeking President wanted to make his mark on American history. Wars create deficit spending whether they are necessary or foolish. Do you want a real constraint on budget deficits? Then have a Constitutional amendment that limits American participation except when declared or when participation in such wars are the result of the decision of an international body (such as the UN or NATO), and mandates tax increases or the imposition of new taxes during such a war.   We could have gotten a declaration of war against al-Qaeda with a super-majority, we would have gotten through the invasions of Grenada and Panama quickly enough, and we would have had full justification for invading Iraq in 1991 because of resolutions of the UN. We would have been in the Korean War but not Vietnam.

Deregulate? Deregulate what?  And how sure are you that President Obama won't win a second term?

We keep adding massive amounts of new regulations every year to the federal register. We should impose a moratorium on any new regulations and look to gut a lot of them. As to specific examples let's look into the efficacy of OSHA, new EPA guidelines, ADA (particularly relevant to me but that's another story), zoning, licensing fees, and various other inane ordinances... Oh and it's not like voters are necessarily opposed to the idea of deregulating, quite the contrary lately.

[phk]

Deregulate? Deregulate what?  And how sure are you that President Obama won't win a second term?

Guys, we obviously need to deregulate PG&E so that there will be more pipeline explosion cleanup jobs. We need to deregulate BP so that there will be more oil rig explosion cleanup jobs. We need to deregulate workplace safety so that there will be more funeral director jobs, and so on. These are all job killing regulations.

Build roads with spoons. Jobs problem fixed.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Obama should have tied a long-term deficit reduction plan to the Stimulus bill in early 2009.

Incredibly true. And I think this is absolutely essential for the next POTUS, who will surely propose a stimulus bill that is focused squarely upon cautious deregulation and more sensible, efficient spending.

Long-term deficit reduction program in early 2009? When your house is burning down, then restocking the pantry is inevitable, but obviously it is not the first thing on your mind.   We had what looked like an ominous parallel to the economic meltdown of 1929-1932, and if you look at the S&P we were about halfway through something very similar. In case you were asleep during the appropriate part of the history lesson, it was the latter part of the meltdown that wrecked so many lives.

We should have stayed out of Iraq, but our glory-seeking President wanted to make his mark on American history. Wars create deficit spending whether they are necessary or foolish. Do you want a real constraint on budget deficits? Then have a Constitutional amendment that limits American participation except when declared or when participation in such wars are the result of the decision of an international body (such as the UN or NATO), and mandates tax increases or the imposition of new taxes during such a war.   We could have gotten a declaration of war against al-Qaeda with a super-majority, we would have gotten through the invasions of Grenada and Panama quickly enough, and we would have had full justification for invading Iraq in 1991 because of resolutions of the UN. We would have been in the Korean War but not Vietnam.

Deregulate? Deregulate what?  And how sure are you that President Obama won't win a second term?

Yes, lets imitate 1933 -  institute vast government programs that drive up a deficit and improve nothing for eight years, then get involved in a huge war and institute rationing.

Better idea: try to do what should have been done in the first place and instead emulate the reactions of the US government to the 1920 recession; cut spending, cut taxes, cut regulations, and have the Fed increase rates. (and believe me, there are many, many things that the Federal government only makes worse by "regulating" which the market could regulate much better). Notably, no one likes to talk about 1920-21 because it was initially a deeper recession than the Great Depression, yet by doing every single thing that people say leads to making things worse (Tax cuts, spending cuts) the economy recovered in under a year and was experiencing massive growth the next year (mind, some of that was caused by an easy lending Fed policy, but that wasn't impossible to deal with).