| Republicans who ruined our economy are now suddenly experts. They are unable to cooperate even now to help save our country. |
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by suzannabanana1  Germany |
|
About
I don't have any particular political affiliation but will attach myself to certain issues. I don't like "jargon" to describe people or issues, like "liberal"; I think it's lazy and replaces critical thinking. I read a lot and I put polls up on issues when I want to compare my opinions against those of others. Often I'm surprised and that's what I like about Ask500. I'm back in Maine (thank god) now after having spent 8 months in Germany and 6 weeks in Krakow, Poland. I did go back to Poland, near Warsaw, for six weeks but am back. I'm home for good now.
After years of mostly ending up on the "liberal" side of things, I'm tending right a little over this illegal immigration issue and I'm becoming more jaded about our Congress. I have to fight feeling hopeless about our country.
|
13 Points
|
Bush tax cut did not work and now they want more tax cuts to the rich.
Yes they did. I recieved more money back on my taxes. I'm far from rich, never made more then 24k in my entire woek life and that was includung overtime.
So that prevented the recession?
What recession? pusspuss doesn't see any recession! Oh wait? What's that? Obama won? Damn!
Now thanks to those damned Democrats we have the Obama recession. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyNo, I don't want to hear it again... because it's a one-sided editorial.. not an accurate picture. McCain by his own admission doesn't know anything about economics. Now you tell me he's the champion who would have saved us from economic collapse. *sheesh*
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI'm sorry. That's just being disingenuous. When Bush took office he had both houses of congress and a veto pen. Please point to all the "good bills" that were blocked and the "bad bills" that were vetoed that would have averted the current situation.
If you don't think the economy is ruined, you really need to take off those ideological blinders.
The economy is not ruined asshole. There are some areas that are in bad need of improvement, but that boondoggle giveaway program that Obama and his gang have proposed will do a lot more damage.
I'm sure it makes you feel better to call me names, but it does little to advance your arguments.
Keep repeating it and one day, maybe, it will be considered true - not!
Bob wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit him in the arse.
While I agree with the "spirit" of your question, it is much to simplistic for a Yes/No answer. :o(
This new round of supposed stimulus, is nothing but mostly pork. It is only going to make matters worse. Who's going to pay when the bills come due, the tax payer, that's who.
Got any evidence for you assertion that it is "mostly pork?" Didn't think so.
But let's just assume you are correct. How is that different from Hank Paulson's "bailout" plan packed with pork for his banking buddies? Answer: The "pork" in this plan will leave us with substantive infrastructure improvements. The "pork" in Paulson's plan will leave us with still insolvent banks.
The Republicans in the house were against the "bailout" at first as well. It eventually passed just as this one will. And neither one will help for shit.
Yeah... I'm sorry. I completely forgot that George Bush and Hank Paulson were not Republicans. Sorry... I won't make that mistake again.
Yep, it's just that simple. A republican president proposed it, so it's a republican thing. It doesn't matter that the majority Democrats in the House and Senate (where all budget decisions are actually made) were the ones who were pushing for it so hard, and that the republicans in the house actually blocked it on the first vote, it's still a Republican mess. That's excellent. Let's just call it what it really was, the kind of thing Democrats love that happened to be proposed by a Republican president.
Hey, if you want me to say it's a Bush and Paulson mess (okay, mostly a Paulson mess, because Bush's understanding economics is on a par with John McCain's) instead of a Republican mess, I'm happy to do that. ;o)
Works for me. That is a statement I agree with. The bailout was a bad idea all around, at least the Republican House members tried to block it. But there wasn't any stopping that train. Of course the representatives who changed their vote after getting whatever earmark was meant for them should all never be elected again.
If you think that building parks and renovating infrastructure is going to stimulate the economy (projects that generate NO revenue), you're probably not qualified to critique a former President and tenured Senator's understanding of the economy...
Generating revenue is part of it... job creation is another part. People who don't have jobs can't spend money.
Why doesn't the government just pay Americans to dig holes and fill them back in? The potential is limitless! Everyone would have a job, and everyone could spend money.
The government can't pay for jobs that don't create some sort of revenue without going into debt.
Projects like this have minimal effect on the unemployment rate as we saw with FDR who left office with over 17% unemployment.
But the WPA and CCC projects did provide jobs for people, so they could retain their dignity, and also provided lasting infrastructure improvements. Even today you can see infrastructure in parks and recreation areas that was built by the "CCC boys."
If we're going to throw money at people anyway, we might as well get something back from it. Sure they can't do it without going into debt, but the viability of deficit spending is a different argument entirely. ;o)
I can't get behind creating a new problem as our best effort to (somewhat ineffectively) fix an old one..
I think the latest proposed bill will cost $910 billion. It would cost us $1.2 trillion to give the American public a 1 year federal tax holiday.
Don't you think that could be an effective economic stimulus that could give people a better opportunity to invest and create jobs? Maybe even get the government to consider cutting unnecessary programs and budgets?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAye, there's the rub. Some people think that building parks and schools and cleaning up pollution and maintaining facilities and reducing emissions and developing technologies that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels are NOT pork.
Traditionally "pork" refers to pet projects that only benefit one congresscritter's constituency. Not the things you just don't happen to agree with.
Groups "such as" ACORN? Clever way to slide that red herring in there, phase.
Can you tell me how diesel emissions reductions and money for NASA's scientists are going to stimulate the economy? Bike and walking trails? Define pork as you will, but these thing just aren't going to stimulate the economy, so they obviously don't have any place in the "economic stimulus" bill.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI know it's hard for you to distinguish between terms like "some" and "mostly" Jonmarc. But I have clue for you. If you unzip your fly, you will be able to count to eleven.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou are one sick puppy.
Here's the thing. pusspuss said the bill was "mostly" pork. That means more pork than anything else. The fact that there is "some" pork in the bill does not make it "mostly" pork.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI'm not ducking and I did answer him. Some people disagree on what is "pork," but my original point is that the bill is not "mostly" pork. I certainly think that building infrastructure like parks, schools, roads, etc. is going to stimulate the economy, even if TysonP doesn't. I also think that investing in technology to move us away from our dependence on foreign fossil fuels will have a stimulative effect on the economy. So I would posit that those projects are also not pork. As for NASA, there is a large body of evidence concerning technology which has made its way to the private sector from the space program.
You may disagree, but then I thought this was a discussion, not an attempt to "prove the rest of you wrong." My bad.
I saw Barney Frank on TV last night. He said half of the bill is not for stimulus. It was for the Dem's social programs.
Okay fine. That still doesn't make the bill "mostly pork." Social programs are not necessarily "pork." Is Medicare pork? Is education pork? Some would say not.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAgain.. many would argue that providing people with jobs is both stimulating (they aren't going to spend money if they don't have jobs) and helping out. But the POINT was that no matter how you think about that the bill is not "mostly" pork.
Don't forget $300 million for contraception/STD prevention. An excellent way to stimulate the economy, and certainly something the taxpayer should be subsidizing.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyPeople like Suzannabannana1 are just as much to blame as republicans who refuse the economic stimulus bill because they spew one sided hate that separates the public. You know you're reminding me of, Suzanna? Rush Limbaugh!
I, on behalf of Rushbo, strongly condemn your comparison with suzannabananaboatdayodayoseedeliteandigottahome.
The republicans in congress don't have to cooperate. The democrats have the majority, if it is such a great economy saving bill then why don't they just pass it themselves and take all the credit when it works?
The bill is not nearly enough, even if it does work it will take ages to get the economy moving again. If it fails you guys will be bankrupt. Now if you wonder why I care, it is that you guys have 6000 nukes lying around that I do not want to land in the hands of some extremist.
The question was referring to the republicans not being in favor of this huge "stimulus" package, my point was that the republicans in congress being for it or against it should really make no difference if the democrats want it passed they can do it.
As to your comment, where do you get the idea that the US economy has stopped and needs to get "moving again?"
Don't know if you have noticed it, but it has not only stopped it is actually in reverse. And the worst is yet to come. If you are lucky you will be able to keep unemployment in single digits.
Your congress critters need to get together on this as one voice and explain the problem to the people of your nation, failing to do so can have serious consequences.
What needs to happen is that the government takes ownership in the banks that fail (most if not all will) and build on your infrastructure. The other option is to let US go bankrupt. In either case it will be hard getting out of it again.
People in glass houses...
Sorry, I don't understand
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou would prefer it if the banks failed?
Gee... I dunno. How about the Congressional Budget and Finance Office? Or the Bureau of Economic Analysis? Or do you only accept reactionary right-wing blogs as primary sources? <http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm>
I was just thinking on my drive into work how great it was that ask001 and I were having a civilized discussion of ideas without resorting to name calling and accusations and then plawler has to jump in and start accusing me of only reading "reactionary right-wing blogs".
As for the source that plawler links to, yes the GDP went down in the 4th quarter of 2008 but the same document also shows that overall the GDP for 2008 was up from 2007.
Yes, I do recognize that we are in an economic slow down and yes unemployment is up but I don't think the answer is for government to start taking everything over and gain even more control of our economy. Personal consumption and expenditures account for greater than 70% of our GDP and government consumption and expenditures account for just over 40% of GDP so instead of having the government spend more and try to boost that 40% share of the pie why not let the consumer keep more of the money with lower taxes and try to grow the 70% piece of the pie.
But again I go back to my original point, the republicans can all vote against the bill and it can still pass, if it is such a great bill why don't all the democrats vote for it, pass it, and take the credit?
If you give the people a couple of thousand dollars each they will likely spend it on imported goods. While that is great for the rest of the world (Including Canada), it is not good for the USA. Targeted spending on infrastructure will do more good within the US.
Bailing out the banks (well buying shares in them and thus re capitalizing them, gives a return on the dollar about 5 to 1 some will argue the return is even higher. Those shares can be sold at a profit when things get back on track.
The need for getting together on this thing is very important as no matter what happens it will be very expensive in the short term, there will be higher unemployment regardless of the bailout. And it is important you guys get together and make it work.
While the option to let the country go bankrupt is certainly an option, but the politicians should also point out that is what they want. At the moment they are lying. Sure it is bad that those bank managers get to lead a lavish live, but regardless if we allow the banks to fail or not they will still be stinking rich.
I don't think either of us is going to convince the other, we just look at this situation differently. But it is great that we had this discussion without resorting to name calling.
But in response to a couple of your comments. Yes the government could sell the bank shares back at a profit later on, but when has the government willingly given up control of something after they have it?
As for the bank managers, I think it is great that they can make all that money as long as they are doing it legally. If you don't like the CEO of XYZ bank making big bucks then don't buy their stock and don't do business with them if enough people do the same the free market will dictate that the bank change their practices or go out of business. That is how the free market works, I don't think the government needs to start dictating salaries.
You don't agree that allowing the banks to go bankrupt would mean a total collapse of the US economy?
I am not suggesting we could control the salaries of any one even if we wanted to, there just are to many possibilities to circumvent anything we might want to impose.
And yes, thank you for the open discussion, it is appreciated.
When has the government willingly given up control of something? Many times. How about the Post Office? How about Blackwater? How about the Federal Reserve?
As long as they are doing it legally is the whole issue. If you want a truly free market there would be no regulations on how they make their money and things like Bernie Madoff did would not be illegal. When you have something as complex as credit default swaps, it is beyond the capability of ordinary people (or, as we saw in October, of Congress) to figure out what kind of shenanigans are going on until it is too late.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyYeah... that was my point. The government willingly gave up control of the money system to the Federal Reserve.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyHuh? Who are Jimma an Bubba?
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyDon't answer a question with a question. If you are trying to imply that the Federal Reserve came about under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, you would be totally wrong... so I figured you knew about somebody else.
The giving over of our banking to the Federal Reserve was Woody's baby.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyCarter signed it into existence? Umm... not so much.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt's just bad form to answer a question with a question. Especially when you have your head up your butt about the subject. ;o)
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyOh yeah sorry. You're right. How could I even think that stupid questions deserve stupid comments?
I didn't call you names, I merely asked if those were your primary sources, since you were insinuating that the economy has not "stopped and needs to get moving again." Saying that 2008 is not that bad overall compared to 2007 when things went to hell in October of 2008 is just disingenuous.
I never said the answer was for the government to start taking things over, but here's the thing. Supply side economics has been a dismal failure. When Reagan took office the U.S. was the largest creditor nation in the world. Today we are the largest debtor nation in the world. When Reagan took office the U.S. was the largest importer of raw materials and the largest exporter of finished goods. Today we are the largest exporter of raw materials and the largest importer of finished goods (read: we don't make stuff any more). This is an unsustainable model.
But back to your original point... perhaps Obama really does want to be a uniter and not a divider, and for both parties to understand that, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.
Zandt, you make some powerful arguments and worded in a civilized manner, I use to be able to talk in such a civil manner, but after a while these liberal assholes will grind on your nerves to the point you resort to plain and unambiguous language.
Aww... you poor thing. So discombobulated, you can't do anything but curse and swear. Don't forget General Stillwell's motto, Mike... "Illegitimi non carborundum."
for the past eight years what was the congress doing to prevent this mess that the country is now in?..let us not forget whose watch this happened on..we should have seen this one coming with Bush in office..how many of you out there remember the savings and loan scandal of the 1980's? Obama's plan is defintely not perfect. I'm not so sure I would put so much stock in any thing that the Republicans could come up with either. If this isn't a case of Ceasar fiddling while Rome is burning I don't know what is. I think everyone in congress both Demorat and Republican should go to the doctor and get a prescrition for some CREDIBILITY pills and wash it down with a nice cold glass of RESPONSIBILITY.