Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,220 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
President Barack Obama had already addressed energy policy, health care costs, and his philosophy on the federal budget deficit when he was asked a far more personal question at the White House on Wednesday afternoon: How does he approach his own finances? What advice might he have for a nation of people whose experiences with personal finance lately have not been so wonderful?

The president had just arrived for an impromptu appearance at a conference of personal finance writers, confronting a group of journalists more accustomed to covering the real-life concerns of ordinary people -- retirement savings, managing credit cards, household budgeting -- than the policy fare that usually occupies the Washington press corps. The question appeared to disarm him. It was one he had presumably not prepped for.

Obama paused for a moment, a wistful look crossing his face.

"Don't spend all your money," he said.

"My grandmother worked her way up from being a secretary to a vice president of a regional bank," the president continued. "She was from Kansas, and she had a very straightforward view, which was save a little bit of what you're earning and the magic of compound interest applies."

For Many, Saving Has Become a Losing Strategy

It was the sort of sober-minded advice that seems both timeless and irrefutable, yet it was striking to hear from a president now overseeing an economy that has become dependent upon infusions of cheap credit from the Federal Reserve. The U.S. central bank has kept interest rates at close to zero for more than two years in an effort to spur economic activity. This approach played a key role in preventing the economy from sliding into the abyss following the financial shock in the fall of 2008, according to many economists, yet the benefit has come at the direct expense of savers, whose deposits have been rewarded with returns so small they have generally failed to keep pace with inflation.



In short, setting aside a little something and waiting for it to grow into something big has generally failed abysmally in recent times. Wage growth has been poor for most working people. Interest rates on deposits have been measured with decimal points.

As it happens, the steady saving approach was more an aspiration than reality inside the Obama household -- at least in the early years.

"That is something Michelle and I have tried to apply, not always successfully, because we're part of the generation that ended up going to college and taking out a huge amount of debt," Obama said. "I'm very sympathetic to what young people are going through today, because Michelle and I graduated from law school with combined debt of $120,000, and it took us 10 years to pay off."

"It was still a good investment," the president added -- a fitting sentiment for a man who used to make his living as a law professor.

'Spend on Things That increase Wealth'

These days, many students are reevaluating the merits of taking on massive debt in exchange for a university degree. For-profit colleges, which are increasingly raking in federal student loan dollars, are churning out legions of students who prove unable to earn enough in their resulting careers to make their payments. (Then, they learn a post-graduate lesson -- that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.) Many law students are finding themselves earning a fraction of what is required to keep pace with their own debts.

So there was something almost quaint about the president's musings on his approach to personal finance: "Spending discipline is important," he said. Who would rise in favor of profligate spending? And yet how much easier is discipline when a household has enough to pay the bills to begin with? This hasn't been a problem in the Obama household of late, where a pair of best-selling books has provided the sort of income about which the vast majority of Americans can only fantasize. For most people, savings comes from more modest and ordinary source -- their paycheck.

These days, of course, paychecks are harder to come by. Generating more of them will entail something other saving on the part of the government, the president asserted, endorsing a strategy of measured borrowing and investing in areas that hold the promise of catalyzing economic growth, from clean energy to education.

This is as true for the nation as it is for households, he suggested, settling on a balance between opportunistic saving and investing in assets of value.

"Our first starter home was a $180,000 condo," Obama recalled, offering a smile-worthy reminiscence for a nation now well-familiar with the concept of being underwater on a mortgage. "That was still a good investment, and we were able to make the payments."

What matters as much as saving, the president concluded, is the quality of spending and investment.

"It remains smart to spend on things that increase wealth," he said. "That's an important distinction that we as a country have to make."


See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/09/obama-talks-about-balancing-his-budget-his-household-budget/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
It's interesting that the article keeps it's focus on personal finance and barely mentions the irony of Obama's statements in light of his "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach to government spending.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
'Spend on Things That increase Wealth'

Glen Beck has been saying this since 'bammy' bought his $180k dwelling.

These days, many students are reevaluating the merits of taking on massive debt in exchange for a university degree. For-profit colleges, which are increasingly raking in federal student loan dollars, are churning out legions of students who prove unable to earn enough in their resulting careers to make their payments. (Then, they learn a post-graduate lesson -- that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.)

More unintended consequences of liberal 'spreading the wealth'. When everybody has a college degree, everybody is the same....everybody earns the same pay because they all have the same 'pay grade'. Also, there is becoming a predominance of 'junk degree'. Useless degrees in the working environment.

Many law students are finding themselves earning a fraction of what is required to keep pace with their own debts.

I read recently that only 20 years ago there were 10 doctors graduating for every lawyer. Now it's 10 lawyers for every doctor.

We are seeing the unintended consequence of saturation.

So there was something almost quaint about the president's musings on his approach to personal finance: "Spending discipline is important," he said. Who would rise in favor of profligate spending? And yet how much easier is discipline when a household has enough to pay the bills to begin with? This hasn't been a problem in the Obama household of late, where a pair of best-selling books has provided the sort of income about which the vast majority of Americans can only fantasize. For most people, savings comes from more modest and ordinary source -- their paycheck.

In his own words... "I mean, at some point, you've made enough." I guess that only applies to someone else, not him. Also, they didn't mention the 2 million he recieved for his Nobel...

The media is continuing on it's qeust to make themselves irrelevant. What a bunch of posers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
It's interesting that the article keeps it's focus on personal finance and barely mentions the irony of Obama's statements in light of his "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" approach to government spending.
I have to comment on this perception of Obama's damn the torpedos approoach to spending....

I guess that what pisses you and those of the extreme right off is the Stimulas spending that Obama did, because other than that he realy hasn't done that much spending has he. yes our national debt is climbing, but that is due to the debt that we already have. we have to pay interest on that debt and that just adds to where we already are. Furthermore we have a huge budget deficit, but that is more due to lower revenues from taxes since the economy is not producing as much as it usualy does.

But the irony of the stimulas plan that Obama passed is that instead of just injecting money into the economy as he would have prefered he gave into the Republicans and made most of the stimulas a tax cut. Isn't that what you guys want to see...more tax cuts.

Now of course the Republicans in the house are calling for huge spending cuts and for shrinking the government. The problem with that is that the government has been shrinking already, that is why unemployement is up even while the private sector is hiring. And if we cut more government spending right now, unemployement will go up even more. If unemployement goes up even more, the public will start feeling even more concerned about the possiblity of loosing thier job and that will kill personal spending. If we kill personal spending then the private sector will see loses in sales and will lay people off, further increasing unemployement.

I think that we have to move slowly to reduce our national debt. after all it took many many years to get to this level of debt. If we try to get rid of it in one fell swoop we may just kill the golden goose. The republicans are playing a political game over this spending. They said nothing when Bush took a large surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. Cheney himself said deficits don't matter...Remember that. But now they scream that we must reduce the deficit. It is a crisis, they say. Why didn't they say that when they were creating the crisis?? Because they know that the best way to keep unemployement down when the private sector has not been creating jobs is to have the government hire people. It happened big time under the Reagan administration and again under Bush. That made it look like their policies were working while kicking the can down the road. Well this is not the right time to stop kicking that can. In a weak economy we can do alot of harm by trying to correct too harshly and too quickly. The Pubs think that doing this will just hurt Obama's chances for reelection, but the truth is that it may just put us on a path that we cannot get off of, and we would all pay the price for that folly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
I have to comment on this perception of Obama's damn the torpedos approoach to spending....

I guess that what pisses you and those of the extreme right off is the Stimulas spending that Obama did, because other than that he realy hasn't done that much spending has he. yes our national debt is climbing, but that is due to the debt that we already have. we have to pay interest on that debt and that just adds to where we already are. Furthermore we have a huge budget deficit, but that is more due to lower revenues from taxes since the economy is not producing as much as it usualy does.

But the irony of the stimulas plan that Obama passed is that instead of just injecting money into the economy as he would have prefered he gave into the Republicans and made most of the stimulas a tax cut. Isn't that what you guys want to see...more tax cuts.

Now of course the Republicans in the house are calling for huge spending cuts and for shrinking the government. The problem with that is that the government has been shrinking already, that is why unemployement is up even while the private sector is hiring. And if we cut more government spending right now, unemployement will go up even more. If unemployement goes up even more, the public will start feeling even more concerned about the possiblity of loosing thier job and that will kill personal spending. If we kill personal spending then the private sector will see loses in sales and will lay people off, further increasing unemployement.

I think that we have to move slowly to reduce our national debt. after all it took many many years to get to this level of debt. If we try to get rid of it in one fell swoop we may just kill the golden goose. The republicans are playing a political game over this spending. They said nothing when Bush took a large surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. Cheney himself said deficits don't matter...Remember that. But now they scream that we must reduce the deficit. It is a crisis, they say. Why didn't they say that when they were creating the crisis?? Because they know that the best way to keep unemployement down when the private sector has not been creating jobs is to have the government hire people. It happened big time under the Reagan administration and again under Bush. That made it look like their policies were working while kicking the can down the road. Well this is not the right time to stop kicking that can. In a weak economy we can do alot of harm by trying to correct too harshly and too quickly. The Pubs think that doing this will just hurt Obama's chances for reelection, but the truth is that it may just put us on a path that we cannot get off of, and we would all pay the price for that folly.
:laughing:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,106 Posts
And this has what to do with a Corvette???
nothing.. but if you have a vette related question we'll be happy to chime in.. what these forays do is keep enough of us engaged to quickly answer your questions.. without it we'd get bored answering the same five questions monthly.

so with that said.. how may we be of service? wascaps??

and Why were you a capitals fan but not now??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I have to comment on this perception of Obama's damn the torpedos approoach to spending....

I guess that what pisses you and those of the extreme right off is the Stimulas spending that Obama did, because other than that he realy hasn't done that much spending has he. yes our national debt is climbing, but that is due to the debt that we already have. we have to pay interest on that debt and that just adds to where we already are. Furthermore we have a huge budget deficit, but that is more due to lower revenues from taxes since the economy is not producing as much as it usualy does.

But the irony of the stimulas plan that Obama passed is that instead of just injecting money into the economy as he would have prefered he gave into the Republicans and made most of the stimulas a tax cut. Isn't that what you guys want to see...more tax cuts.

Now of course the Republicans in the house are calling for huge spending cuts and for shrinking the government. The problem with that is that the government has been shrinking already, that is why unemployement is up even while the private sector is hiring. And if we cut more government spending right now, unemployement will go up even more. If unemployement goes up even more, the public will start feeling even more concerned about the possiblity of loosing thier job and that will kill personal spending. If we kill personal spending then the private sector will see loses in sales and will lay people off, further increasing unemployement.

I think that we have to move slowly to reduce our national debt. after all it took many many years to get to this level of debt. If we try to get rid of it in one fell swoop we may just kill the golden goose. The republicans are playing a political game over this spending. They said nothing when Bush took a large surplus and turned it into a huge deficit. Cheney himself said deficits don't matter...Remember that. But now they scream that we must reduce the deficit. It is a crisis, they say. Why didn't they say that when they were creating the crisis?? Because they know that the best way to keep unemployement down when the private sector has not been creating jobs is to have the government hire people. It happened big time under the Reagan administration and again under Bush. That made it look like their policies were working while kicking the can down the road. Well this is not the right time to stop kicking that can. In a weak economy we can do alot of harm by trying to correct too harshly and too quickly. The Pubs think that doing this will just hurt Obama's chances for reelection, but the truth is that it may just put us on a path that we cannot get off of, and we would all pay the price for that folly.
First of all, less than 1/3 of the stimulus money went to tax relief, and all of that went to low and middle income families to inject cash into the economy. The rest is straightforward government spending - much of it to extend jobless benefits. Here is my problem with Obama's view of government and spending: It all goes back to Obamacare. The deep, deep recession we were in was no time to be pushing a gigantic new entitlement program through congress that would eternally put our government on the line for more money. Whether the program was needed or not, that is not the time to be doing it. He did it because he knew he had a very small window of opportunity to slip this through public opinion and that window would close quickly. In other words - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. If he had acted like anything other than a government loving partisan on that issue, I might give him a break on the stimulus. But he clearly cares nothing about the spending side of the deficit equation. Republicans are forced to stand their ground on taxes - even if there might be some justification for raising them - because the Dems and Obama will take every dime they get and just increase our overall spending.

What is the money being spent on-general breakdown between infrastructure, tax cuts, etc…?
Some highlights of the package, by the numbers:
• $825 billion total (as of 1/15/09)
• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions)
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
• $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
Anyone who believes that the stimulus was anyhing more that pure political payback in an idiot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,760 Posts
First of all, less than 1/3 of the stimulus money went to tax relief, and all of that went to low and middle income families to inject cash into the economy. The rest is straightforward government spending - much of it to extend jobless benefits. Here is my problem with Obama's view of government and spending: It all goes back to Obamacare. The deep, deep recession we were in was no time to be pushing a gigantic new entitlement program through congress that would eternally put our government on the line for more money. Whether the program was needed or not, that is not the time to be doing it. He did it because he knew he had a very small window of opportunity to slip this through public opinion and that window would close quickly. In other words - damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. If he had acted like anything other than a government loving partisan on that issue, I might give him a break on the stimulus. But he clearly cares nothing about the spending side of the deficit equation. Republicans are forced to stand their ground on taxes - even if there might be some justification for raising them - because the Dems and Obama will take every dime they get and just increase our overall spending.

What is the money being spent on-general breakdown between infrastructure, tax cuts, etc…?
Some highlights of the package, by the numbers:
• $825 billion total (as of 1/15/09)
• $550 billion in new spending, described as thoughtful and carefully targeted priority investments with unprecedented accountability measures built in.
• $275 billion in tax relief ($1,000 tax cut for families, $500 tax cut for individuals through SS payroll deductions)
• $ 90 billion for infrastructure
• $ 87 billion Medicaid aid to states
• $ 79 billion school districts/public colleges to prevent cutbacks
• $ 54 billion to encourage energy production from renewable sources
• $ 41 billion for additional school funding ($14 billion for school modernizations and repairs, $13 billion for Title I, $13 billion for IDEA special education funding, $1 billion for education technology)
• $ 24 billion for "health information technology to prevent medical mistakes, provide better care to patients and introduce cost-saving efficiencies" and "to provide for preventative care and to evaluate the most effective healthcare treatments."
• $ 16 billion for science/technology ($10 billion for science facilities, research, and instrumentation; $6 billion to expand broadband to rural areas)
• $ 15 billion to increase Pell grants by $500
• $ 6 billion for the ambiguous "higher education modernization."
Ok first of all take your calculator and divide $825 billion and divinde it by three....yes it is $275 billion, so not less than a third, a full third.(and yes obviously not most of it, excuse my enthusiasm, please) Next, the fight over Obama care is about saving money. Yes I know that your side says that it will cost more and the other side says it will cost less, but if they believe it will cost less then they are trying to do good.

Now Bush passed a $400 billion (at that time, more now) medicair entitlement and I heard nothing from any of you guys. Why is it always OK for your guys to spend but not for the other guys. You would all be taken far more seriously if you didn't support the guy who put us in this hole while you attack the guy who is trying to get us out of this hole.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
I wish I had his money problems...
 

·
I support glass stairways
Joined
·
5,955 Posts
yes they all in an idiot. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Hey Pot, you REALLY shouldn't be correcting the Kettle:


I would guess that they would if it paid to do so. Remember we have a capitalist news media. If you don't like what they do, you are anti capitalist. If their was no news in Palin there would be no money in it and they would then not cover her. But the truth is everytime they write something about Palin half of us jump for joy that she again made an ass of herself and the other half of us defend her every word, either way the media wins. The only way to stop it is to stop you half of it....otherwise suck it up pal. :rolling::rolling::rolling:
http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1891173&postcount=21

Even if the left didn't ignor her, she would have gone away if the right didn't defend her. The truth is that you guys love her, because she feeds you the red meat. The left pushes your buttons and sits back and laughs at the lengths you guys will go to to defend her. If you truly want her to go away stop defending her. You cannot control the left, control what you can control, control yourself.
http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1891175&postcount=22

And fox is owned by one company....what is your point? Are you saying that our news media is conspiring to hurt your candidate? are you saying that these comapnies would do something to hurt their bottom line just to hurt poor sarah Palin??? Are you paranoid? Shhhh don't answer that last one they might be listening. :rolling::rolling::crazy::crazy:


By the way sorry that people making money off of high end turn tables offends your sense of capitalism. It is wrong that people in the USA should actualy make anything. I am sure you would be much happier if those turntables were made in China. :rolleyes:
http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1891190&postcount=27

That was three posts out of four in ONE THREAD alone, shall I continue????:laughing::laughing:
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top