Corporate Welfare Kings

I can agree with the President on this iniative because it is a push for private sector jobs (he is one very long year late). The push for the free exchange of goods and services with billions of individuals in other countries is being done without force. This is reason in that it breaks from the status quo of watching other economies deny their citizens the right to bargain with U.S. individuals.

The last U.S. GDP figures (not gov't) include a gain that can be attributed to Healthcare and Exports. Most would agree that Exports benefit the private sector immensely except a few promoting other peculiar causes.

I wonder how much of this trade "imbalance" has been purchased with borrowed money as a result of Fed policy...

Or more loosely paraphrased, "Obama panders to special interests."

My shower's leaking. Can Obama fix it?

The US telling the Chinese how to manage their currency is like Nancy Pelosi telling Sarah Palin how to butcher a moose.

And what do we think about this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,151... ?

Here's the bottom line in IMO for the Market Fundamentalist True Believers. If we DO NOT see an improvement in our exports and trade imbalance we WILL NOT see any long term improvement in our economy.

If some one wants to formulate a bet to that effect and put money behind their faith in inaction over reasoned policy I'd be glad to take you up on it... because you will lose.

This economy is bad because it has done many things you FMF (free market fundies) have pushed and still push for. Doing more of the same will make things worse. I'm completely willing to profit from your stubborn insistence to stick with a broken philosophy.

Muigeo if you are going to continue to post here in favour of the import export bank I would kindly ask that you disclose any associations you have with the Boeing Corporation. Sorry, but your post is too much like the one I used to hear from them when I was in DC (the import export bank is essentially the government subsidized branch of the Boeing finance corp.). Of course, this is probably in error as such a distinguished anti-corporate crusader like yourself will quickly fix their opinions in order to fight the power so to speak—unless of course the Democratic party now benefits from the corporate largess? If that is the case then carry on with your hipocrasy

Superb trolling!

No kidding. He generated 12 response to non-sequitur, off-topic ridiculousness.

I know it's been explained to me before, but remind again why anyone bothers posting responses to his trolling?

Can you describe the trade imbalance? What exactly isn't being balance here besides the federal budget?

What did you attempt to get across in your second paragraph in which you challenge us to bet you?

The economy has done things we have pushed for? Explain how we have pushed this economy and why it listened to us. "Doing more of the same will make things worse." More influencing interest rates low? More policy to direct people into housing that they cannot afford? More bailouts? More Troubled Asser Relief? More subsidizing businesses that are losing money? More legislation from a Democrat majority in both houses of congress since 2006? In other words, George, which part of more-of-the-same are you ascribing to free-market-fundementalists like us?

He's just projecting again.

See, here is the difference between free markets and all the rest: http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/11/snapshots-fro...

In the free market this arena would never be built. These people would not be displaced.

The reason we have economic problems is because government (any government it seems) has a collective thinking that goes like this:

A 15 mpg clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A 25 mpg vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 clunkers were turned-in, so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars

So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with health care deform as well.

Name something we "free market fundies" have pushed.

Also, why do you have an icon of a guy that interned 100+ thousand Japanese-Americans, and executed (non-military) people after only having a military tribunal hearing?

Because he's a conscriptor. He endorses the conscription of fellow humans via "collective" agency.

You really do make up your own economic theories and economic history, don't you? Since when the hell did export fundamentally constitute the soundness of an economy? Why do you even bother posting when all you ever post is a bunch of mindless vitriolic ranting that took you 2 minutes to concoct?

So you are in favor of corporate welfare. Not that it's a surprise... it's just nice to have you on the record.

"Progressives" like Muirgeo just want to start a fight. They believe in their own variant of fascism, but with a more enlightened touch.

Please sir the term is "regressives" as it more accurately describes their ideas and policies.

As you can see it also more accurately allows the understanding that they are also "retards".

:-D join me in attaching accurate labels to the regressive retards.

No Muir Geo, this isn't about doing the same things, or even have a plan to do any damn thing. Exports have been up, way up, and the economy is not getting better BECAUSE there is a lot of uncertainty about what policy manipulations will be coming next.

It is not about being a free market thinker. It is not about INaction. There are several fundamental policy choices that can be pursued and the administration is not doing them. Instead of signing serious agreements (supported by Clinton-era and Bush-era economic advisers) this president is sitting on his hands and making these idiotic speeches like he's on the campaign trail.

Exports are very good for the economy, and they've been way up. Where's the improvement? Why isn't it working? I don't know who you are attacking with the straw man phrase "you free market...". I'm in favor of regional trade agreements. I see the effects of clear policy statements that have the force of law and they make overseas markets more open because the rules are clear and well known. It's when a bunch of policy wonks who have never done a single trade deal, never sold a single good they made or paid a single employee start making different rules and then change the enforcement or issue "rule fixes" a few months later-- that's when it all stops working. When a corrupt, semi-literate trader from another country can look you in the eye and say, "Your people (the US) don't know what they want." THAT's when something is broken (and it's not philosophical).

The economy is bad because of decades of government policies designed to inflate the real estate market. Its going to get much worse because the government has been engaging in the issuance of many other unsustainable entitlements for decades. The bad ideas of the early 20th century are reaching their logical consequences.

From the article: "Mr. Obama renewed his call for China to move to a more market-based currency..."

After I stopped laughing it occurred to me that this type of public statement means even less than it did last year. US exports rose 18.1% in the fourth quarter of 2009. Is this his way of taking credit for that? It came a weak dollar, lower fuel/transpo costs, and low commodity prices. It had nothing- not a thing- to do with Washington policies. He suggested making our trade fairs better... wooooweee.

Let's not get off the dime and get agreements done with South American countries that want open markets (because it will anger labor unions). Let's ramp up protectionist policies against Chinese and Korean manufacturers making cars, tires, and electronics. And please, let's tell China how to manage their monetary policies.

My god, this kind of pandering crap makes Clinton and Bush look like geniuses in comparison.

This is a sorry sign of how inferior Obama is to his predecessor.

Bush could have doled out that corporate welfare in just one year!

Can't blame it on The Obamessiah, as much as I'd love to. He can only propose corporate welfare. Congress has to write the legislation.

It doesn't actually say in the linked article how money Obama is committing to this effort: For those who do not subscribe to the WSj go here http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-st...
for the full story.

However, your trite little jab is funny, and has to have been made by a very young guy who does not know that Bush's predecessor, Clinton, handed out just shy of a billion dollars in corporate welfare in his first year in office, $900 million to be exact. $600 million to Archer Daniels Midland as a gift in aid of their overseas advertisement, and $300 million to the Popcorn Council of America for the same purpose. But then, Clinton is such a right wing radical!

I am not sure Bush equaled that in his eight years, perhaps so, but I heard no details on it.

I don't like when people attack presidents, for what seem to me to be partisan reasons. There is not much difference, in terms of corporate welfare, between Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. To act as if there is anything more than a small marginal difference is to be intellectually dishonest.

Bush II approved somewhere between $700-800 billion in corporate welfare in the bailout before he left office. Consider also all the money companies like Blackwater and Halliburton got (and are still getting) in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also raised steel tariffs as soon as he came into office.

Bush II also signed Sarbanes Oxley, which helped to reduce capital to smaller companies wanting to go public. Whatever he said, the fact is he was not a free market president.

Oh I absolutely agree that Bush the deuce was not a free market president, don't believe I claimed he was.

Don't think he raised the tariffs on steel as soon as he came into office. I believe that was in his second term, wouldn't defend this though and I am too lazy to go research it. It isn't important enough.

Also consider all the billions trial lawyers got under Clinton, as well as the corporate welfare his administration doled out. We do agree that this kind of crap goes on no matter who is president.

As for money going to Blackwater and Halliburton (we can agree on whether there even needed to be war) at least they are under contract and performing service. What contract did ADM or the Pop Corn Council have and what service did they perform in order to receive $600 and $300 million bucks respectfully of our money from Clinton. They didn't, it was pure gift.

Yep, my only point was that Sir John the Thompson above got lost in his obvious talking points.

I wasn't using talking points. I just thought the last line of Don's post set up a pretty good joke. I completely agree that Democrats and Republicans both believe in ridiculous levels of corporate welfare. What is really depressing is how many liberals attempt to argue that corporate welfare is actually a good thing (we need an industrial policy, or protectionism, or whatever, or we'll fall behind the Germans/Japanese/Chinese!).

Sorry I misread you.

I agree with your point about Blackwater and Halliburton.

Here's a little help while you're suffering uncharacteristic laziness: the Bush steel tariff went into effect March 20, 2002, and was lifted 20 months later on December 4, 2003. I agree it's not that important. But if it is to be mentioned, we should also point out that Bush II increased from 3 to 17 the number of nations with which the U.S. had free trade agreements. I believe additional agreements with South Korea, Panama, amnd Columbia were pending at the time he left office.

But a free trade agreement is not necessarily free trade. Is it really necessary to have a thousand page document for every separate country?

Trade doesn't need that much legislation or regulation. It's not necessary to have a free trade agreement with every country. All that's needed is a few pages that say tariffs for any product will never be more than x. You can add a few more things barring some military grade arms sales and other things, but you don't need anything else. I'd doubt if that would take a dozen pages at most. It would cover every country and be easily workable for anyone wanting to get in.

As far as the signing of these things to be some badge of honor for Bush II, I think Clinton would have done the same thing, had he had the chance. Of course, I grant that is pure conjecture, but I really don't see very much difference between Clinton, Bush II, and Obama in regards to regulation and commerce. They tend to be bad and at best, they're mediocre.

"It's not necessary to have a free trade agreement with every country. All that's needed is a few pages that say tariffs for any product will never be more than x."

Very simple to type onto a blog comment. Not so simple to implement in the real world.

"but I really don't see very much difference between Clinton, Bush II, and Obama in regards to regulation and commerce."

I agree there was not a lot of difference between Clinton and Bush II. I was pleased with the free trade agreements passed during both administrations.

What has Obama done to make trade between the U.S. and other nations more free? What deregulation has he even proposed, much less implemented?

Well, I would call the entire ethanol boondoggle corporate welfare, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes to the ethanol boondoggle being corporate welfare, corporate welfare that has outlived more than one president for sure; and, corporate welfare enthusiastically pushed and supported by every nutball liberal in congress if not the entire land. So it is obvious we agree on the part that is clear, and you are confused on the rest.

yes!!!

Perhaps he is planning to decrease import tariffs, which will of course increase both imports and exports and increase GDP in the process.

Or perhaps not.

How would that increase his power?

Well, perhaps it won't be direct corporate welfare in terms of direct gifts of money, but choosing the manufacturing and production that gets assistance and favor definitely is.