Republicans, what is wrong with you?
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
Jim let me ask you a serious question...do you really not feel the negative repercussions that this president has thrust on this country? look at your daily life, name one thing that has improved...how are your gas prices in Cal? what about when you go to the grocery store? do you feel this country is more or less divided then it was? do you really feel the obama stimulus package was worth it...where are the jobs he promised you? How about the MASSIVE DEBT he thrust on our future .....how about Guantanamo?? Do you even know how many middle class folks lost jobs by his threats.... how about the "Bush War" are we out yet? Ooh I know he has really supported the gay movement..NOT! ..I really like to know what has this guy has done to improve YOUR life? and dont be like some CNN clown graph monkey..... tell me in your own words for a change.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Craig,
I know the repercussions of the BushII recession are still with a lot of the Country, but you are asking about me. My business has never been better, I went to the mall last weekend, I could not find a parking place!
The stock market is way up during the Obama administration, I have made back all I lost under BushII and than some.
The Republicans forced through a big tax break that I did not want or need.
Craig, Fox must still be blaming Obama for BushII's wars, Gitmo and economy. you will believe anything.
Posted by Craig.
Big tax break!
Bin Ladin no longer breaths my air!
I'm no longer embarassed having Bush, a truly incompetent leader.
Americans have almost stopped dying in Iraq.
Posted by Craig
Craig, did Fox tell you this is a depression? I suggest you look up the difference in depression and recession.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
*******
I saw on the news, that so far this year, the Sara Palin campaign had raised under $1.5 million. That is not even enough to run for the mayor of Wasila!
The people have spoken!
Jim, From January 2007 to January 2011 there was a democrat controled house and senate, the senate is still controlled by democrats. If you remember 2007-2009 were the last two years of GWB's presidency. The democrats had the power to overrule presidential vetoes during this time. Bush had 12 vetoes during his presidency, 4 were overruled by a democrat supermajority. So in essence, the last two years, Bush was a lame duck. The debt, etc. from 2007 on was in democrat hands. Was Obama running for a different office and the wars and state of government affairs were found out after he was elected? No, he was running for the office of President of the United State of America. As with every president in the past, the new president inherits the good with the bad. No other president in history has pissed and moaned and blamed his shortcomings on the previous president as has Obama. If he wasn't prepared for this job he should have stayed in Illinois. Suck it up, do the job, stop whining about Bush, it's been 30 months, give it a rest.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Craig, did Fox tell you this or did you get it wrong all by yourself?
You must not have paid attention in history class, did you?
I suggest you go back and look up the story behind another failed Republican, Herbert Hoover! That really was a DEPRESSION!!!!!
********
Here is a little history lession for you. In 1929, on "black Tuesday", the bubble burst, there was a stockmarket drop.
Republican President Herbert Hoover refused to make any attempt to help the economy. He did not attempt to lessen the problem be using the financial means at his disposal. he refused to save the banking industry, or any industry for that matter.
The market then totally crashed, banks failed, the economy totally collapsed!
Democratic President Roosevelt came in and started huge government financed stimulus plans. These stimulus plans required raising the debt ceiling (is this sounding framiliar?). slowly the economy turned.
By the time of his death, the United Satates economy has totally recovered and was by far the largest in the world!
in 2007-2008 when we had another bubble burst, once again the Republicans refused to do what was nessisary to stop a the decline.
Finally it took Obama and McCain, stopping their campaigns, going to Washington, sitting down with Bush and forcing through a plan to prop up the financial industry, saving the banks and some of Americas largest companies.
The Republicans Screamed, smart folks here on this fourm screamed. They said, let these companies fail, do not help GM let them all die.
Fortunatly, some folks did pay attention in history class, and prevented the total collaps of our economy!
Last edited:
whatever Jim....at what point in time does Obama take ownership of this mess...
Jim,
Every argument you post decries Fox News as the basis for your premise. You should try another tack and maybe others on this forum will believe that you are "fair and balanced". From the sidelines you appear to be as biased as the folks you so readily defile and that is a shame since anyone who loves GT40's is a good guy in my book
I learned long ago that people that don't always agree with you or share your point of view will help you reach better decisions with repect to business, and business is what we need more of now in the USA, especially for those over 50 who have lost their jobs. I am glad that your business is doing so well. It is unfortunate that so many millions of your countrymen have not fared so well and the current administration is as much at fault as you like to point out that Bush was.
As for me, I would like to see just 100 of the thousands who STOLE the equity of middle-class homeowners in the biggest fraud in American Banking history, go to jail! What kind of country puts a property theif in prison for stealing TV's and such, but lets these thieves that stole billion..trillions, get a free pass because the institutions they worked for are "too big to fail"? If you want to see anarchy, then that is what will happen when the masses feel that the judicial system is no longer fair. This is a problem that belongs in the government's lap regardless of party affiliation.
Garry
Every argument you post decries Fox News as the basis for your premise. You should try another tack and maybe others on this forum will believe that you are "fair and balanced". From the sidelines you appear to be as biased as the folks you so readily defile and that is a shame since anyone who loves GT40's is a good guy in my book
I learned long ago that people that don't always agree with you or share your point of view will help you reach better decisions with repect to business, and business is what we need more of now in the USA, especially for those over 50 who have lost their jobs. I am glad that your business is doing so well. It is unfortunate that so many millions of your countrymen have not fared so well and the current administration is as much at fault as you like to point out that Bush was.
As for me, I would like to see just 100 of the thousands who STOLE the equity of middle-class homeowners in the biggest fraud in American Banking history, go to jail! What kind of country puts a property theif in prison for stealing TV's and such, but lets these thieves that stole billion..trillions, get a free pass because the institutions they worked for are "too big to fail"? If you want to see anarchy, then that is what will happen when the masses feel that the judicial system is no longer fair. This is a problem that belongs in the government's lap regardless of party affiliation.
Garry
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by me.
*********
Gary,
I know I constantly go after Fox, but I strongly believe they are one of the worst things to happen to our country in my lifetime. They are telling everyone to repeat Herbert Hoovers huge mistake. Let the economy totally fail!
They are a cancer on the body politic.
They wish to see the economy fail, just so Obama would loose the next election. Your comment about blame, fault and revenge is another issue, here we are talking about saving the economy.
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
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.
Pat
Supporter
I promised myself, I’d stop political discussions affinity sites but I just need to set the record straight.
There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929. These include the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the manner in which the downturn spread from country to country. In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like massive bank failures and the stock market crash. In contrast, other economists (such as Barry Eichengreen, Milton Friedman and Peter Temin) point to monetary factors such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre–World War I parities. President Herbert Hoover, self-described progressive and reformer, started numerous programs, all of which failed to reverse the downturn. (The 1929 crash occurred in his ninth month of office). In June 1930 Congress approved the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression. Then there was also the dustbowl climatic conditions that made for an agricultural economic disaster. Blaming Hoover for the depression makes as much sense as the screeching to blame Bush. Like Bush, he didn’t create it, but his policies inhibited recovery from it. Hoover did (with Congress); compound its effects with protectionist measures currently being advocated by the unions and many Democrats). Hoover had never held major leadership office before his presidency and a was progressive who was simply overwhelmed by events, (not unlike our current president).
The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression. However, some consider that it did not play a very large role in the recovery, although it did help in reducing unemployment. America's entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%. In the U.S., massive war spending doubled economic growth rates, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts.
But Roosevelt was responsible for the post-depression recovery in a different way.
In truth, in the U.S.,if you really want to take Democrat President Roosevelt successful approach, I guarantee it would work.
First, pull a few million people out of the workforce to fight a world war and only pay them subsistence wages for 5 or so years. This allows them to build consumer product demand. It also gets new individuals into the workforce. Kill off about half a million of them (combat and other deaths), maim about twice that to further create a massive labor shortage. Give them all basic training to teach all of them to work in teams, take responsibility and achieve goals. Get them physically and mentally fit. Give them all fundamental occupational skills training. Give them discipline. If they have so much as a dirty rifle (a court martial offense at the time) put them in jail. Then systematically obliterate every city and factory in Germany and Japan to eliminate the competition. As an added bonus, your allies also are heavily bombarded to limit their industrial capacity as well. Use your army to seize all the natural resources you want through occupation. And voila, the U.S. economy will boom when the troops get out of the military and get married, buy cars and houses and the U.S.A. rebuilds the world and life is good.
The other extreme is what we are seeing. The stock market appears to be up because the FED is printing money like crazy. You aren’t seeing stock value rise, you’re seeing stock prices increase. The penalty is what we’re seeing at the pump, the grocery store and the commodity markets and will only get worse.
Until we have a government that is economically stable, the crisis will deepen. You can’t borrow 40% (and exponentially growing) of what you spend without the certain eventual collision of interest on the debt exceeding not only the debt principal but the gross domestic product as well. This renders the subsequent collapse of the monetary system. You can't afford a government that is big enough to micromanage the light bulbs you use, the weight of your children, how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep and the "freedom from being offended or suffering failure" culture it wishes to impose.
There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929. These include the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the manner in which the downturn spread from country to country. In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like massive bank failures and the stock market crash. In contrast, other economists (such as Barry Eichengreen, Milton Friedman and Peter Temin) point to monetary factors such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain's decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre–World War I parities. President Herbert Hoover, self-described progressive and reformer, started numerous programs, all of which failed to reverse the downturn. (The 1929 crash occurred in his ninth month of office). In June 1930 Congress approved the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act which raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression. Then there was also the dustbowl climatic conditions that made for an agricultural economic disaster. Blaming Hoover for the depression makes as much sense as the screeching to blame Bush. Like Bush, he didn’t create it, but his policies inhibited recovery from it. Hoover did (with Congress); compound its effects with protectionist measures currently being advocated by the unions and many Democrats). Hoover had never held major leadership office before his presidency and a was progressive who was simply overwhelmed by events, (not unlike our current president).
The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression. However, some consider that it did not play a very large role in the recovery, although it did help in reducing unemployment. America's entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%. In the U.S., massive war spending doubled economic growth rates, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts.
But Roosevelt was responsible for the post-depression recovery in a different way.
In truth, in the U.S.,if you really want to take Democrat President Roosevelt successful approach, I guarantee it would work.
First, pull a few million people out of the workforce to fight a world war and only pay them subsistence wages for 5 or so years. This allows them to build consumer product demand. It also gets new individuals into the workforce. Kill off about half a million of them (combat and other deaths), maim about twice that to further create a massive labor shortage. Give them all basic training to teach all of them to work in teams, take responsibility and achieve goals. Get them physically and mentally fit. Give them all fundamental occupational skills training. Give them discipline. If they have so much as a dirty rifle (a court martial offense at the time) put them in jail. Then systematically obliterate every city and factory in Germany and Japan to eliminate the competition. As an added bonus, your allies also are heavily bombarded to limit their industrial capacity as well. Use your army to seize all the natural resources you want through occupation. And voila, the U.S. economy will boom when the troops get out of the military and get married, buy cars and houses and the U.S.A. rebuilds the world and life is good.
The other extreme is what we are seeing. The stock market appears to be up because the FED is printing money like crazy. You aren’t seeing stock value rise, you’re seeing stock prices increase. The penalty is what we’re seeing at the pump, the grocery store and the commodity markets and will only get worse.
Until we have a government that is economically stable, the crisis will deepen. You can’t borrow 40% (and exponentially growing) of what you spend without the certain eventual collision of interest on the debt exceeding not only the debt principal but the gross domestic product as well. This renders the subsequent collapse of the monetary system. You can't afford a government that is big enough to micromanage the light bulbs you use, the weight of your children, how much of your earnings you are allowed to keep and the "freedom from being offended or suffering failure" culture it wishes to impose.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Veek,
I totally agree with you!
I do not think that Hoover was at fault for the Stock Market crash, it was as you say a number of factors.
I believe he was fully responsable for not doing the things nessisary to prevent the crash from leading to the total collapse of the banking system/markets.
He could have proped up the banks and help the largest employers to survive.
But we are saying these things in hindsight. Hoover could not know the lessons we learned from 1929 and the aftermath.
But today we do know the lessions from 1929. which is why I could not understand the Consevative matra, let them all fail, do not bail out anyone, do not pass a stimulus........
Veek, as far as WW2 helping the economy, absolutly! Although things had been getting better, the build-up and then the war totally accelorated the recovery. But the large stimulus programs started by Roosevelt had started been making a differance.
As for the full recovery in the late 1940's, 1950's, the GI bill and government sponsored higher education paved the way for the "Greatest Generation" to drive our economy through the roof.
This is why I cant understand the current Consevative stand against any help with stimulus, bail outs or student loans.
It all seems incredable short sighted to me!
I totally agree with you!
I do not think that Hoover was at fault for the Stock Market crash, it was as you say a number of factors.
I believe he was fully responsable for not doing the things nessisary to prevent the crash from leading to the total collapse of the banking system/markets.
He could have proped up the banks and help the largest employers to survive.
But we are saying these things in hindsight. Hoover could not know the lessons we learned from 1929 and the aftermath.
But today we do know the lessions from 1929. which is why I could not understand the Consevative matra, let them all fail, do not bail out anyone, do not pass a stimulus........
Veek, as far as WW2 helping the economy, absolutly! Although things had been getting better, the build-up and then the war totally accelorated the recovery. But the large stimulus programs started by Roosevelt had started been making a differance.
As for the full recovery in the late 1940's, 1950's, the GI bill and government sponsored higher education paved the way for the "Greatest Generation" to drive our economy through the roof.
This is why I cant understand the current Consevative stand against any help with stimulus, bail outs or student loans.
It all seems incredable short sighted to me!
Jeff Young
GT40s 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.
It's very much in debate whether the actions by the New Deal Democrats took some of the sting out of the Great Depression, with probably a small majority of economists saying that their policies did have a positive impact.
But the reality is it was the first time that Government used Keynesian and other tools to try to impact the business cycle, and those guys were learning.
Since 1945, Government fiscal policy, including stimulus spending and influence on insurance rates by the Fed have shortened and weakened recessions. the numbers are quite dramatic actually. I'll post them here if you have the guts to actually take a look at them! lol....
Viewing the length and severity of recessions/depressions pre 1945 and after is pretty dramatic. We've learned to manage the economy.
Stock prices are up because companies are performing well -- and hoarding cash and not hiring people.
It's very much in debate whether the actions by the New Deal Democrats took some of the sting out of the Great Depression, with probably a small majority of economists saying that their policies did have a positive impact.
But the reality is it was the first time that Government used Keynesian and other tools to try to impact the business cycle, and those guys were learning.
Since 1945, Government fiscal policy, including stimulus spending and influence on insurance rates by the Fed have shortened and weakened recessions. the numbers are quite dramatic actually. I'll post them here if you have the guts to actually take a look at them! lol....
Viewing the length and severity of recessions/depressions pre 1945 and after is pretty dramatic. We've learned to manage the economy.
It is "short sighted", Jim.....as long as the "short" part is interpreted as "short term".
IMHO, this entire 2 year period will be a loss to the American People because of the backlash that occurred when a racially different, politically "left of center" POTUS was elected by the people of America.
Now, I don't believe that the MAJORITY of the American people are unhappy with Obama's performance, at least not yet. If the Republicans have their way, though, that will change.
The Republicans have historically been the cheerleaders of and the protectors of business, to the detriment of the "blue collar" working class. The previous president, however, was an embarrasment to the American people whenever he opened his mouth...but he WAS pro-business and that is why we elected a POTUS who was more empathetic to the plight of the working class in light of the "cult of corporate greed" that was fostered by Gee-DUB.
Now that Obama seems interested in asking those greedy corporations, and their unreasonably highly paid executives, to give up some of those financial gains in order to keep the middle class from tanking, the Republicans realize that they can't let that happen if they want to have a ghost of a chance of defeating the Democratic candidate for POTUS in November, 2012. The current political posturing is a cleverly devised campaign to "discredit" Obama, thereby giving the Republicans SOME hope of gaining back the executive office in 2012.
Unfortunately, they are holding the entire population of the U.S., themselves included, hostage to the proceedings. If their "Our way or the highway" posture does not soften, the U.S. will enter a dark period that will cost each and every one of us incredible amounts due to increased charges by the financial arena...despite Obama's efforts to hold those increases in check, if not reduce their impact.
It's all about the 2012 election, that's the "short" part of it. If the Republicans are successful in regaining the White House in 2012, they will force through legislation very similar to what is being proposed by Obama right now, and then take credit for "saving" the country.....mark my words.
Indeed, the Republicans have allowed their feelings of defeat in the past election to cause them to act very "short sighted", both in term of the immediate issues and the future of our country. Let's hope America recognizes this and holds their feet to the fire in the next election for it!!
Cheers from Doug!!
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Posted by Doug
Doug,
I see very little chance of the republicans winning in 2012. The Republicans with any chance of winning the undecided vote are all stying on the sidelines, waiting for 2016, their next chance.
The remaining candidates, like I said yesterday, are all fighting to be Captain of the Titanic.
Similar threads
