Republicans, what is wrong with you?

Posted by Tom,

Tom, President Obama accepted resonsibility when he became President.

If you would read what I posted, he was doing the job even before the election.

He, McCain and Bush pushed through the bail out and stimulus before he was president. Kinda like doing BushII's job.

Despite Republicans best effort to destroy the economy, he refused to allow the total collaps that would have happened without the bail out/stimulus.

The Democrat house and Senate pushed the bail out and stymuls bill through, get your facts straight.
He hasn't accepted responsibility for anything, everything is Bush's fault, he makes weekly references to the inherited debt, wars, etc. It's part of the job, GET OVER IT!!!!!
 

Pat

Supporter
No, stock prices are not up because the Fed is "printing money." Stop with the blabberhead speak please.

Stock prices are up because companies are performing well -- and hoarding cash and not hiring people.
.

Jeff, I wish you weren't but you're very wrong (and needlessly insulting).
By the end of the month, the Federal Reserve will complete its second round of quantitative easing—often referred to as QE2—in which it's buying $600 billion worth of treasury bonds to push interest rates lower and kick-start the economy. The bond-buying program has come under fire from critics who say it has inflated the value of the stock market as well as commodities prices across the board—including the price of gas, which is still nearly a dollar higher than it was a year ago. At the same time, the economy has hit what economists call a "soft patch" following a number of weaker-than-expected economic reports, including a double-dip in home prices.
Now the economy is faced with what could be its biggest challenge yet: surviving without the Fed's stimulus.
We have seen over a trillion in Keynesian stimulus spending, record shattering deficits, easy money, bank bailouts, mortgage bailouts, low interest rates, even fake, Keynesian, “tax cuts” (based on tax credits rather than reduced rates).
Yet, at no point in the last 70 years, going back to the Great Depression, has the American economy suffered unemployment this high for this long, or such extended stagnation without a rebound or recovery. The American economy does not lie flat on its back for years and years like this, except during the Depression. Even in the 1970s era, the economy persistently rebounded after four worsening recession cycles.
President Obama and the Democrats persist in their discredited and outdated theory that economic growth is created by increased government spending and deficits. If that were true, the American economy would be enjoying its greatest boom in history right now, with a 28% increase in federal spending and more than $4 trillion in deficits since 2008.
Maybe you don't go to the grocery store, buy gas or have friends out of work so you are insulated from the world around you.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Veek,

But was it not massive Government deficit spending, first with stimulus and later massive war expenditures that finally ended the great depression.

The resulting fast recovering economy fairly quickly paid back the expenses.

Veek, a couple of questions:

1. Would we be better off if the investment banks had failed, if GM and Chrisler had failed?

2. What would you do?
 
Last edited:
Not being really part of this conversation, this is what I would have done about GM and Chrysler.

I would have let them go into bankruptcy so they could have renegotiated the wages with the union and that could have let the company survive. I don't believe ever that any company is too big to fail. When a company fails, they leave a void to be filled by another company that could be doing things better.

What we learned by bailing out AIG was that we can really screw up and get money from the government and then we can go party and get raises for being stupid.

This stimulus money would have been much better spent if it was just split up and given to each legitimate citizen in America than just.... well, we really don't know where the trillions of money really went do we?
 
Most people don't seem to grasp our national debt. To put it into perspective, if we spent $1,000,000 (one million dollars) a day it would take 38,356 years to reach $14,000,000,000,000 (fourteen trillion dollars). Have fun sleeping tonight.:)
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tell me again about the debt and who is responsable!!!!

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width=12></TD><TD class=nrml>National Debt as a Percent of National Income


</TD><TD width=10></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- center ROW 2, Type=Text ================= --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><!-- C-Row TN --><TD width=12></TD><TD class=nrml>
US-National-Debt-GDP.gif



</TD><TD width=10></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- center ROW 3, Type=Text ================= --><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><!-- C-Row TN --><TD width=12></TD><TD class=nrml><IFRAME style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; OVERFLOW: hidden; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 450px; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; HEIGHT: 25px" src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http%3A%2F%2Fzfacts.com%2Fp%2F318.html&layout=standard&show_faces=false&width=450&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=35" frameBorder=0 scrolling=no allowTransparency></IFRAME>
This graph shows that $9.2 Trillion of the $12 Trillion supply-sider increase in national debt is considered problematic by economists. They say it is fine to increase the debt in step with national income. Republicans say the whole $12 Trillion is a problem.
The green line shows what would have happened if Reagan and the Bushes had just kept the debt growing at the same rate as the economy. That would make their parts flat. Many conservatives claim Congress increased Reagan's budgets, but this is not the case as you can see documented here.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
We obviously can not afford to have any more Republican Presidents!

I would like you indignant conservatives to tell us why you did not compLain while the "Great"
Ronald Reagan ran up HUGE DEFICITS, why did you indignant conservatives did not complain when George Bush ran up huge deficits?

These guys cut taxes and tell us it will help the economy. They obviously runined the economy.

Now just like Clintion (look at his numbers), a Democrat has to come in and try and fix the horrable financial disaster caused by another cut (taxes) and run Republican.

Tom, if you really care about the deficit, why don't you stop blaming democrats and become one! Our economy can't take anymore selfish republicans!
 
Last edited:
We obviously can not afford to have any more Republican Presidents!

I would like you indignant conservatives to tell us why you did not compLain while the "Great"
Ronald Reagan ran up HUGE DEFICITS, why did you indignant conservatives did not complain when George Bush ran up huge deficits?

These guys cut taxes and tell us it will help the economy. They obviously runined the economy.

Now just like Clintion (look at his numbers), a Democrat has to come in and try and fix the horrable financial disaster caused by another cut (taxes) and run Republican.

Tom, if you really care about the deficit, why don't you stop blaming democrats and become one! Our economy can't take anymore selfish republicans.



All right TomP, Craig and the rest, why do you selfish conservative suddenly tell us why you just discover the debt now?

You look at the graph, last two years of GWB, 2007-2009 democrat house and senate. Even without that the debt has gone from 10.7 trillion to 14.2 trillion in 30 months under Obama.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom, look again at the chart, use your obviously limited imagination, now remove the red lines. Without the republican red lines our economy is just fine.

Tom, the democrats did not force through Bushs tax cuts, the democrats did not start two wars with no way to pay for them.

Tom, ANSWER THE QUESTION, why do you selfish conservatives only care about the deficit now, not when Reagan and Bush were fucking our economy.


Look at the chart, can anyone deny that if Clinton had remained President that we would be much better off.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Tom,

Look again at the chart. Follow the black line along Carters presidency. OK

Now in 1980, Ronald Reagan, and the republicans swept into power, winning the Senate for the first time in many years.

Look at the deficit! STRAIGHT UP!!!

From their first day in power the republicans screwed the economy and have not stopped.
 
Your not listening, Obama has raised the debt $3.5 trillion in 30 months, the greatest jump in the shortest time in history. It's quite obvious that you can't carry on a discussion without being demeaning and rude, you can carry on with this thread without me.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Fine,

You obviously have no answer to why it was ok for Reagan and Bush to destroy the economy.

Just blame it in the Democrats who have to try and fix their disastrous legacy.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
You'll have to give me a non-blabberhead source for your contention that the Fed's use of quantitative easing -- one of the many tools it has used over the years to keep interest rates down when the economy has needed a push -- is the "cause" of the stock market essentially doubling since January 2009. If you think that none of that increase has to do with corporate performance -- i.e. how the corporations that are issuing the stock are doing - I can't help you.

Up until the last two months the economy has been doing well, other than for unemployment. Growth rates were reasonable and projected to continue. We've hit a bump, for sure, but it isn't because the Fed is "printing money" (a silly talking point that in reality means next to nothng).

Institutional unemployment is a problem. As I read the major economic print media, there are a number of causes for this (all speculation though, have to agree with that):

1. companies fear a liquidity crisis like in 2008 and want to stay lean, and hoard cash, until they feel more secure in the recovery.

2. The stimulus has essentially run out. Moreover, state governments are also going througha debt crisis and cutting back. The number of government jobs lost in the last 3-4 months was pretty extraordinary.

3. But there may be something more fundamental going on here. Job growth/creation in the 2000s was significantly less than in the 80s/90s. THere is some speculation as to why that is. The American economy is mature, and productive, and productivity gains are eclipsing the need for new workers is one thought.

But no, the answer to all our ills is not the Fed "printing money" and as I explained above techniques like the stimulus and quantatitive easing have dramatically shorted the length of recessions, made them more shallow, and increased the time between them. Post WWII, our sophistication in learning to manage the economy has increased fairly dramatically. THe numbers don't lie and you don't want me to post them.

Jeff, I wish you weren't but you're very wrong (and needlessly insulting).
By the end of the month, the Federal Reserve will complete its second round of quantitative easing—often referred to as QE2—in which it's buying $600 billion worth of treasury bonds to push interest rates lower and kick-start the economy. The bond-buying program has come under fire from critics who say it has inflated the value of the stock market as well as commodities prices across the board—including the price of gas, which is still nearly a dollar higher than it was a year ago. At the same time, the economy has hit what economists call a "soft patch" following a number of weaker-than-expected economic reports, including a double-dip in home prices.
Now the economy is faced with what could be its biggest challenge yet: surviving without the Fed's stimulus.
We have seen over a trillion in Keynesian stimulus spending, record shattering deficits, easy money, bank bailouts, mortgage bailouts, low interest rates, even fake, Keynesian, “tax cuts” (based on tax credits rather than reduced rates).
Yet, at no point in the last 70 years, going back to the Great Depression, has the American economy suffered unemployment this high for this long, or such extended stagnation without a rebound or recovery. The American economy does not lie flat on its back for years and years like this, except during the Depression. Even in the 1970s era, the economy persistently rebounded after four worsening recession cycles.
President Obama and the Democrats persist in their discredited and outdated theory that economic growth is created by increased government spending and deficits. If that were true, the American economy would be enjoying its greatest boom in history right now, with a 28% increase in federal spending and more than $4 trillion in deficits since 2008.
Maybe you don't go to the grocery store, buy gas or have friends out of work so you are insulated from the world around you.
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Well, today was the day Wisconsin voters were going to tell the Repubs how wrong they were :thumbsup: .

Anybody hear how the voting turned out?

Here's some of what the AP had to say:

"MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Six Wisconsin senators targeted by a recall election fought to keep their jobs Tuesday, trying to beat back Democratic challengers who stoked a backlash against Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker for their efforts to strip public employees of most union rights.

Fueled by millions of dollars from national labor groups, the attempt to remove GOP incumbents could shift control of the Wisconsin Senate to Democrats and provide a new gauge of the public mood less than a year after Republicans made sweeping gains in this state and many others.

Besides the six Republicans on Tuesday's ballot, two Democratic incumbents face recalls next week. A third Democrat survived a recall attempt last month.

The stakes in Wisconsin were clearly much larger than control of the Senate. The recall election will also help determine whether the Republican revolution led by Walker regains momentum or suffers a major setback. Both parties also were testing messages ahead of the 2012 presidential race, in which Wisconsin was expected to be an important swing state.

The Legislature that had been approving Republican-backed bills in rapid succession will likely grind to a halt if Democrats win back the Senate. They would then be able to block anything from passage without a bipartisan agreement.

Any newly elected senator will take office within 15 days, a brief window in which Republican Senate leaders could call a lame-duck session if they are about to lose control."

As usual, I'm a fan of "bipartisanism"....not a fan of either party ramming things down the public's collective throats even if they have the votes to do it. I'm tired of the current atmosphere of political gridlock...sure, things might well go a bit slower with NEITHER party in control, but at least we get more of a "moderate" outcome, compared to the "radical" stuff we've been seeing (WI is an excellent example of the "radical" side, IMHO).

We'll see how things went soon enough, I guess.

Cheers, Doug!
<SCRIPT>document.write('<iframe style="float:right;margin-left:5px" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+rand+'?" width="300" height="250" frameborder="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>');</SCRIPT>
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Looks like a wash right now, 3 Repubs victorious, 2 Dems victorious, 1 race too close to call:

"Republicans successfully defended three seats in recall elections and Democrats picked up two. One Democratic incumbent won his recall election last month."

Still 3 recall elections to occur next week, all Dems, if they carry two of the three, the Dems will regain control of the WI legislature.

Looks like a close one....stay tuned!

Cheers, Doug!!
 
Back
Top