Spender -In- Chief Obama's Blank Check!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're telling everyone how bad it was and how everything was all wrong, while at the same time continuing to do the exact same things.

Great, now tell me what Obama / congress should do and quit wavering and complaining.

Quote

1. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY.

There is no money. We were out of money 12 trillion dollars ago. It's just digging the hole that much deeper, and that's not even considering the inflationary consequences.

We could forecast this brilliance as Obama was elected. How is that 2/3 of the debt occurred under Reagan, Bush, Bush, yet Obama inherited the 2nd worst US economy ever and he's a spender?

Again, you have given us no Justin Plan, just whine and cheese. WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU DO WITH ALL OF THE EXISTING PROBLEMS?

- Bank industry on the edge of total collapse.
- Auto industry on the edge of total collapse.
- States billions in teh red each
- Tax revenues to incredible lows
- Unemployment freefalling
- Stock market free-falling
- GDP: last 4 of 5 quarters negative (first time since GD)
- And probably more.....

So now tell me what you do with this and get your finger out of my asshole. I'm sick of the neo-cons whining; shit me a plan CONSIDERING ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS.

Quote

2. STOP TRYING TO POLICE THE WORLD.

Pissing off half the world and then having to defend against the likely results of such actions is a shitty idea. How about just not pissing off everyone in the first place?

That isn't an Obama issue, that is a US issue. We have been Imperialists since WWII. I agree with you, but don't put that on Obama.

Quote

3. STOP CREATING MORAL HAZARD THEN TRYING TO REGULATE THE INHERENT PROBLEMS AWAY.

Don't pressure banks into giving people mortgages for which they wouldn't otherwise qualify, supply them with cheap, easy credit, and then try to regulate them into not taking advantage of it.

How is Obama doing that or planning to do that? Furthermore, who has in the past pressured that and under what law? Right, this is a turd from Limbaugh?hannity. The banks don't feel pressure from the US, vice versa.

Quote

The solution? Don't create the situation in the first place, and there's nothing to regulate.

That's all great and utopian, but here, I'll snap my fingers and you can wakeup in the 21st century....ready.....SNAP!

Ok, the question I asked was to take the current mess as Obama inherited and explain, piece by piece what you would do, how you fund it or if you would just let it flop and what the consequence(s) would be.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

#1 I have been saying for a while but no one on the left wants to give up the free stuff they are getting and no one on the right wants to continue paying for the free stuff.

1. STOP SPENDING SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY.

There is no money. We were out of money 12 trillion dollars ago. It's just digging the hole that much deeper, and that's not even considering the inflationary consequences.


The predictable oddity is that 2/3 of the debt occurred under the last 3 R presidents, yet you and yours clammers about the spendy left . Again; predictable.

Quote

# 3 is just common sense but then again we are back to the liberals wanting everyone to have everything and not what they have earned.

3. STOP CREATING MORAL HAZARD THEN TRYING TO REGULATE THE INHERENT PROBLEMS AWAY.

Don't pressure banks into giving people mortgages for which they wouldn't otherwise qualify, supply them with cheap, easy credit, and then try to regulate them into not taking advantage of it.

Says the neo-con who's party is almost wholly responsible for the debt.

How bout you, let's hear your plan if you were pres on Jan 20, 2009. I don't expect an answer, esp not a comprehensive one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

When I think FOX News I think Skychimp

When I think of Lucky, I think of MSNBC. And....?


Simple arithmetic is hard to follow eh?

Yea but I don't post MSNBC and ask you to believe it as wholly credible. There's your math.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

It's possible to pour gasoline on a fire you didn't start. You understand that concept, right?

The Fed is responsible for the drought, Bush lit the fire, and Obama's the 45mph wind. There are no firemen in sight.

It's nice to see that someone can objectively see the elements in play in stead of worrying about what news source is reporting the facts of the math.

Yes, but it's also nice to see yet another neo-con post in a Spender -In- Chief Obama's Blank Check! thread and fail to state what he shoukld do. And I have the bad math? As opposed to your non-math.

Watch out! Ron is lurking for spellijng errors.... oh wait, not in neo-cons, play on thru

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Capitalism has worked great for over 200 years in this country.

You have a point there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foreign_Holders_of_United_States_Treasury_Securities-percent_share.gif

And we are the most indebted in the world:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_deb_ext-economy-debt-external

So our economic model is the best, eh? Nice try, I don't think I'll take a bite of that shit sandwich.

Quote

You don't have the right to take hard earned money and spread it around to where you feel it's best suited.

No, the gov does, but you're right, I don't.

Quote

You don't have the right to mortgage my grandchildren's future for the next 50 plus years because you are stimulus drunk.

Tell Reagan, Bush, Bush. See, you blow your whole argument when you reffuse to address 2/3 of the total debt was incurred under them and they also left a mess that so far 1 Dem has mopped up, now the 2nd is working on this one. You have no credibility iff you don't blame where it's due.

Quote

A 5th grader could tell you the math isn't putting us on the right track.

Which explains the biggest debtor president of all time, GWB fucked it all up at 5T debt addition while receiving a surplus and stable debt figure.

Quote

Justin is correct in his statement......

Ron is right, Rush is right, Justin is right.... I see an entire radio stationher that could rival Limbaugh / Hannity; which with the cheap plugs, will ya.

Quote

in each hand you have two jugs, one is gasoline and the other is water. Which do you throw????

Do you mean, 'In each hand you have 1 jug; which do you throw?'

- OR -

You have 2 jugs, 1 in each hand; which do you throw?'

I would throw the one that would retroactively wake up the idiots who voted for Reagan.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

my partial solution #1. lower funding to NASA, i mean really were NEVER going to colonize the moon or Mars or any place else why keep wasting trillions on the program. Im not saying stop it all together since that would destroy the economy even more, but we dont need to bomb the moon to see about water.

They funded it by telling the neo-cons in congress that there were Muslin Terrorists on the moon.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's possible to pour gasoline on a fire you didn't start. You understand that concept, right?

The Fed is responsible for the drought, Bush lit the fire, and Obama's the 45mph wind. There are no firemen in sight.

It doesn't matter; the firetrucks will have a very hard time making it past the roadblocks and the land mines that the Republicans have been placing ever since Ronald Regan was appointed.

Please elaborate these specific road blocks and landmines you are referring to?

- Trippled the debt

- Cut taxes from 70% to 50%, 50% to 38%, and 38% to 28%. This drove up the debt to tripple, in spite of increased revenues. Taxes have never even been 40% since crappy drawers and these have been the worst finacial times as a whole since Reagan took office. Under Clinton they flourished, but that was in spite of low taxes.

- Busted labor

- Overbuilt a military when it wasn't needed

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

We used to operate with the idea that we should think about what is going to happen to the next 7 generations because of what we do today ---

I would not want to live here 7 generations from now, hell I feel bad for the next generation already... We are screwing everyone, and nobody seems to give a crap --- they just want everything now.

And the debt was 900B as Reagan took office, do you think he was a visionary? Oh wait, he couldn't have been, he pussied out of the war due to to ALLEGED bad eyesight.

But of course this is a partisan argument to you, so there will be no blame for the right.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I am a huge Bill Clinton fan and I don't think he even agrees with Obama's policies.

I'd like to see evidence of that.

[nate_1979 9]

Both sides have screwed up, D and R --- One of the biggest screw ups? GWB --- NO doubt, hey, shits going down hill, lets lower taxes, then lets do tax rebates, who cares if we are fighting a war! Oh yea, lets do Medicare D --- YES, that will make things great...

Obama? Lets spend a shit ton of money in addition to what we already have and keep doing it just like the last guy ...

My question is, who's going to stop drinking the crazy juice and stop spending OUR money on all of the special interest bullshit? It's not even just the Pres, polititions in general are bleeding us dry, and they have been doing it for some time...

Your right, we can't blame obama for all of our problems, but I sure as hell dont think that he's helping them.

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Both sides have screwed up, D and R ---

The debt was 900B as Reagan took office, please tell me all the Dem fuck ups since then. They were minimized a lot of Reagan's terms and virtually all of GWB's terms, which is where the damage was done, so I don't seee how they were responsible.

The healing from Reagan took place from 90 to 93 with the tax incease and spending cuts and congress was Dem controlled then. I just don't seee how the Dems had a measurable part in this financial mess.

Quote

One of the biggest screw ups? GWB --- NO doubt, hey, shits going down hill, lets lower taxes, then lets do tax rebates, who cares if we are fighting a war!

Good to see an R admit the obvious. We need heavy taxc increases then.

Quote

Oh yea, lets do Medicare D --- YES, that will make things great...

That's true, the seniors can wait after all. Dude, some things you just have to do no matter what. This is the greatest generation who were elderly in the timeframe to which you refer, yet fuck em????

Quote

Obama? Lets spend a shit ton of money in addition to what we already have and keep doing it just like the last guy ...

I won't get an answer, but tell me what he spent on and what he should have done instead. What the results are now and what they would be if your plan was in effect. BTW, I;m still waiting for your plan.

Quote

My question is, who's going to stop drinking the crazy juice and stop spending OUR money on all of the special interest bullshit?

You read like a Heritage Foundation article. What special interest BS? What waste? What has Obama spent on that you think was a bad idea? I asked before, lay out your Jan 20, 2009 plan considering all attributes to the economy.

Quote

It's not even just the Pres, polititions in general are bleeding us dry, and they have been doing it for some time...

Shall we abolish government?

Quote

Your right, we can't blame obama for all of our problems, ...

EXACTLY WHICH ONES CAN YOU BLAME OBAMA FOR?

Quote

...but I sure as hell dont think that he's helping them.

Really?

- Market (DJIA) was 7950 and freefalling as he took office, now it's 10,400+.

- GDP was in it's 4th of 5 neg Q's, it has moved + 10 points since then, probably unprecedented GDP recovery, if not, damn near.

So come again, less than a year and an amazing recovery so far, quite a way to go, but digging in and making ground. So again, how is he not helping them? What exactly is his fault?

BTW, I don't expect answers.

[SkyChimp 0]

I give you the dedication ribbon for spending so much time replying to every one in each of their posts. You stand for what you believe in and I respect that even though I disagree with you. However, I think that your belief of socialism to fix the problem is not the solution and Obama's position isn't fixing the problem. It's making it worse. We agree to disagree.

.... and yes I meant to type in each hand you have one jug.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

We spend 15- 20x as much each year on just the interest on the national debt.

I don't post much but I'm one Democrat that won't be revoting for Obama just because of that alone.

Awww c'mon ... even if he ends up running against Palin/Beck??

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

my partial solution #1. lower funding to NASA, i mean really were NEVER going to colonize the moon or Mars or any place else why keep wasting trillions on the program. Im not saying stop it all together since that would destroy the economy even more, but we dont need to bomb the moon to see about water.

They funded it by telling the neo-cons in congress that there were Muslin Terrorists on the moon.

Muslin Terrorists? They didn't have to go to the moon to find those. There are still plenty of them in Indiana!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

and yes I meant to type in each hand you have one jug.

Fair enough, not trying to nitpick ya.

Quote

I give you the dedication ribbon for spending so much time replying to every one in each of their posts. You stand for what you believe in and I respect that even though I disagree with you.

Thx.

Quote

However, I think that your belief of socialism to fix the problem is not the solution and Obama's position isn't fixing the problem.

We can attach a defining word to a specific ideology and when we have 2 concurrent systems, what do we call it? A hybrid? Who cares? We currently have attributes of Capitalism, Socialism and even scant Communism in the US. Is it working? No. So in order to not be insane, we can't keep doing the same thing claiming it works alright, agreed? So which way do we change? Do we do the Libertarian thing and lower taxes to 10%? Or have we learned thru history that tax cuts lead to disaster? What do we do? So far Obama's plan is working well, I'd like to see a faster turnaround in real GDP in history. It may exist, I just don't know of it. And the market, look at it fly. See, in teh US, we need to resort the rich and make them millionaires/billionaires before we get the people back to work again; just the lovely way we roll with our Capitalism. So what's left, unemployment? OK, give it a year, guarantee we'll be under 7%, probably 5-6%. What will you say then? It cost too much? You can't have it both ways and this way gets things together faster. Did you have a hard time admitting Clinton's fiscalplan was golden? How about agreeing the Reagan/GWB (same plan) was and is a dissaster? If we do this, we have a hard timing saying, "tax cuts my friends."

Quote

It's making it worse. We agree to disagree.

That's fine, but I have defined how Obama's plan has worked well in under a year, you refuse to explain how it isn't, what would be better or anything contrary. It's your right, but do you expect anyone reading this to agree with you when you have no explanation for your beliefs?

Most people are ideologues. That's obviously when a person sticks with an ideology whether it's positive or not. I view most contemporary Republicans as ideologues, as they refuse to understand new ideas, which is why you call the other end, progressives. The Republicans were the progressives in 1860, they held that for 50-60 years and then became the ideologically regressive party. The term neo-con was coined in 1921 as I read in one article, most, including me, thought it was a Reagan thing. Tax cuts, my friends is pure poison. The Republican Party lost it's way as they went into the 1920's and have only had 2 honorable WH representatives since; Eisenhower and GHWB - no honorable ones are in sight.

The most blatant example of an ideological culture was with Hitler, many of the German Workers' Party, then later named by Hitler the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi for short) electorate went to their graves defending him. We look now and ask how that could be, but once people become ideologues they are hard to change, even with loads of empirical data. I feel most contmporary Republicans are in that ilk. I mean, do you think the National Socialist German Workers' Party electorate did anything but deny or justify the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazi Party? Do you think they discussed the elements or just dismissed it and called outsiders a bunch of terrorists, or their equivalent for that day? I listened to one German lady speaking, she was a citizen under Hitler, she spoke of Nationalism, bilnd Nationalism. This is the element neccessary for a corrupt regime and so far that's mostly what I see from current Republicans.

Not trying to anger you and I'm not calling you any names, just look at it, if you can't honestly define the acts of the system you subscribe to, then maybe it's time to rethink your positions on things. This is why I ask everyone to show me a major Fed Tax cut that has resulted in bliss, or the opposite, a major Fed tax incr that has turned to shit.

I'd love to read either of those and/or explain how Obama is going the wrong way, what he should do, etc.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

That's fine, but I have defined how Obama's plan has worked well in under a year, you refuse to explain how it isn't, what would be better or anything contrary.

Here is how it hasn't worked. When you throw good money after bad; it sets the stage for hyper inflation. Take for example the bank bailouts. Giving the large institutes the stimulus and then watching the executives deploy their golden parachutes and leave the aircraft in a nose dive is an example of how that's not the solution. Remember the cash for clunkers program??? How nice it was to see a program that was designed to "stimulate" the Big 3 (GM, Ford, and Chrystler) that only benefited the foriegn car market. That was another program from Obama that didn't fix the problem. How can you say that you see him being successful??? Do you know the top ten traded vehicles??? I'll list them for you.

Ten Top Trade-Ins Under Cash for Clunkers

1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

And the top ten new car purchases, subsidized by the American taxpayer, are mainly foreign vehicles!!!

Top Ten New Car Purchases: Cash for Clunkers

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyndai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Cash for Clunkers did wonders for the Japanese economy, but its impact on the US job situation is problematic. This unintended consequence is a great illustration of what happens when the blunt force of Obama's subsidy is applied to the fine tuning of a free market economy. Government planners keep getting it wrong. That’s why socialism is such a bad idea.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Here is how it hasn't worked. When you throw good money after bad; it sets the stage for hyper inflation.

OK, so we have near Great Depression settings and you worry about hyperinflation. Isn't that like worrying about the paintjob on your car that you're gonna buy in 10 years? Don't we have to fix the current mess before we focus on future issues?

Again, you reinforce my point that all you have are criticisms of how fucked it is; we know how fucked it is thx to your party. SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS?

Quote

Take for example the bank bailouts. Giving the large institutes the stimulus and then watching the executives deploy their golden parachutes and leave the aircraft in a nose dive is an example of how that's not the solution.

Oh, the one passed and implemented by your guy? Again, all criticism, no solution. Here's the solitions:

1) Have the gov become the bank and lend money for houses, cars, etc.

2) Load the current and failing banks full of cash to resume lending

3) Just let the system fix itself as they did in 1929-32 and watch 100's of thousands / millions die.

So tell me, which would you choose? I don't expect an answer, just more criticisms. See, the president took the tough stance and actually addressed these issues, made a decision and acted. The result is a GDP that is very healthy and a market that is way ahead of schedule. Unemployment is yet to come.

Quote

Remember the cash for clunkers program??? How nice it was to see a program that was designed to "stimulate" the Big 3 (GM, Ford, and Chrystler) that only benefited the foriegn car market. That was another program from Obama that didn't fix the problem. How can you say that you see him being successful??? Do you know the top ten traded vehicles??? I'll list them for you.

Ten Top Trade-Ins Under Cash for Clunkers

1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

And the top ten new car purchases, subsidized by the American taxpayer, are mainly foreign vehicles!!!

Top Ten New Car Purchases: Cash for Clunkers

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyndai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

I'm not a fan of C4C either, but that encompassed 3/787th of the stimulus cash, so is that your best argument? I'm thinking a mainline arg would be to focus on where a larger amount of cash went.

Quote

Cash for Clunkers did wonders for the Japanese economy, but its impact on the US job situation is problematic.

Oh, how's that? How did it damage the US job situation? The job-loss freefall was already in the works. Furthermore, tarriffs on imports won't work since your party has hammered us so deep that we are at the mercy of foreign lenders. Obama tried placing a tarriff of Chinese tires, the backlash was bad, as they are our largest holder of debt, thx to Reagan/GWB.

Quote

This unintended consequence is a great illustration of what happens when the blunt force of Obama's subsidy is applied to the fine tuning of a free market economy.

FINE TUNING? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHITTING ME. 4 of 5 Q's GDP were negative and you want a little tweek? Hoover was your hero, huh? It's a shame Mr. Tax cuts my friends wasn't elected so we could watch 2-3 years of fine tuning as riots broke out and robbery/murders were commonplace, then the huge tax increases and we wouldn;t have to hear from the brilliance of the RW for the rest of my life. Real shame.

Hoover realized he fucked up, raised taxes 260%; apparently you're too smart to learn from history.

Quote

Government planners keep getting it wrong.

Planners? Are you talking congess and the WH? If you look at the 'planners' since 1980, when things started going awry, the, uh, planners Reagan and GWB were the real problem, planners GHWB and Clinton the cure.

Quote

That’s why socialism is such a bad idea.

Then explain how Socialist and some Communist countries are kicking our asses fiscally if we're so great, they so horrible.

You can only chant this horseshit about American Capitalism being so great, and then they repo the big screen and Beemer and you have to admit it sucks.

Again, it's Jan 09 and you've just been sworn in as pres, with the economic conditions we had, what exactly and specifically would you do and why? Again, I won't wait for an answer.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

OK, so we have near Great Depression settings and you worry about hyperinflation. Isn't that like worrying about the paintjob on your car that you're gonna buy in 10 years? Don't we have to fix the current mess before we focus on future issues?

Yes, because the strength of the currency is purely of an aesthetic value to the country.

What good is any attempt to reduce the cost of something if the money used to purchase it has no value? It's thinking like that which has got us into this very situation.

Quote

Again, you reinforce my point that all you have are criticisms of how fucked it is; we know how fucked it is thx to your party. SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS?

Okay, okay, we get the point that you have no other argument than "It's bushes fault".

Quote

1) Have the gov become the bank and lend money for houses, cars, etc.

Because they're so good at managing money? You forget we're 12 trillion dollars in debt?

Quote

2) Load the current and failing banks full of cash to resume lending

What good is being able to borrow money if inflation is so high it has no value?

Quote

3) Just let the system fix itself as they did in 1929-32 and watch 100's of thousands / millions die.

You mean let the government try and fix it like they did? Or should they let it correct itself like it did in 1920?

Quote

See, the president took the tough stance and actually addressed these issues, made a decision and acted.

The tough stance? He took the politically convenient stance, not the tough stance.

Quote

The result is a GDP that is very healthy and a market that is way ahead of schedule. Unemployment is yet to come.

Now that's almost laughable.

Quote

I'm thinking a mainline arg would be to focus on where a larger amount of cash went.

I'm thinking we should focus on where it came from as well.

Quote

Planners? Are you talking congess and the WH? If you look at the 'planners' since 1980, when things started going awry, the, uh, planners Reagan and GWB were the real problem, planners GHWB and Clinton the cure.

Another "It's Bush's fault". How surprising.

Quote

You can only chant this horseshit about American Capitalism being so great, and then they repo the big screen and Beemer and you have to admit it sucks.

And if you think what we have is true capitalism, you're an idiot.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And if you think what we have is true capitalism, you're an idiot.

I'll address the rest in a minute, BUT STOP THE PA's.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

That's fine, but I have defined how Obama's plan has worked well in under a year, you refuse to explain how it isn't, what would be better or anything contrary.

Here is how it hasn't worked. When you throw good money after bad; it sets the stage for hyper inflation. Take for example the bank bailouts. Giving the large institutes the stimulus and then watching the executives deploy their golden parachutes and leave the aircraft in a nose dive is an example of how that's not the solution. Remember the cash for clunkers program??? How nice it was to see a program that was designed to "stimulate" the Big 3 (GM, Ford, and Chrystler) that only benefited the foriegn car market. That was another program from Obama that didn't fix the problem. How can you say that you see him being successful??? Do you know the top ten traded vehicles??? I'll list them for you.

Ten Top Trade-Ins Under Cash for Clunkers

1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van

And the top ten new car purchases, subsidized by the American taxpayer, are mainly foreign vehicles!!!

Top Ten New Car Purchases: Cash for Clunkers

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyndai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

Cash for Clunkers did wonders for the Japanese economy,.

You should do a little fact checking before you post.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,997]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yes, because the strength of the currency is purely of an aesthetic value to the country.

You didn't comment on the fact that we're near GD times, so worrying about what might become hyperinflation, maybe, could be, is ridiculous. It's like wondering what kind of 20" wheels you will have on your new Escalade when you can't afford a car yet. This is more than cart before the horse logic.

Quote

What good is any attempt to reduce the cost of something if the money used to purchase it has no value?

And why are you worrying about reducing the cost of things when we are in a major financial emergency. I mean, would you tell your wife you need to save money and not buy teh kids medications for their cancer? When you're in emergency times, you do WHATEVER you have to, unlesss you're the Republican Party of course, then you just spend willy-nilly and blame teh Dems, even tho virtually all the debt is the very well-documented doing of the right.

Quote

It's thinking like that which has got us into this very situation.

Right, thinking like your heroes; tax cuts my friends.

Under Clinton the USD went from 1 USD = 1.28 CAD, to, 1 USD = 1.55 CAD. Then under your hero we fell below them for a stretch, what brough the USD back up to about 1 USD = 1.20 CAD was the market crash where people yanked out of the market and threw in bonds. Now that the market is flying, investors are yanking out of bonds and throwing into the market, we are now 1 USD = 1.05 CAD.

Cut spending and raising taxes is the best way to go for a strong dollar; tax cuts my friends and waste 100's of billions on the military in time of peace is the way to trash your country. And yet you think your way is valid, other's are wrong. Just bizzare logic.

Quote

Okay, okay, we get the point that you have no other argument than "It's bushes fault".

I'll ask again: SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS?

I ask, what would you do? If your feelings are hurt about me thinking it's Bush's fault, omit that part. What would you do to fix the mess Obama inherited? Not a tough question, straight forward; answer it.

BTW, what I asked was not an argument, it was a question; there is a difference as it wasn't rhetorical.

Quote

1) Have the gov become the bank and lend money for houses, cars, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTIN: Because they're so good at managing money? You forget we're 12 trillion dollars in debt?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2) Load the current and failing banks full of cash to resume lending

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTIN: What good is being able to borrow money if inflation is so high it has no value?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Just let the system fix itself as they did in 1929-32 and watch 100's of thousands / millions die.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTIN: You mean let the government try and fix it like they did? Or should they let it correct itself like it did in 1920?

Those were the 3 choices, you just gave sarcastic commentary, you didn't state what you would do. You inferred you would, "let the market fix itself" as Hoover did, but you didn't state as much; IS THAT YOUR SELECTION OF THE 3? It's so unusual that Republicans don't nail down what they would do.

BTW, bad link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920%E2%80%9321

We've been in a recession since mid-late 2007, ALL of the numbers/indicators were looking far worse and declining and you want Obama to just let the market fix itself?

You do realize Hoover tried the same approach and we don't know how many died, probably at least a million, many say several million. See. recessions/depressions are all diff animals, just like every skydive is its own animal. Some recessions drag in, some are caused by a sharp event that throws us in immediately. Some are caused by the stock market, some by labor, some by trade, etc; a million diff reasons why we get into them, but to claim a lassiz faire approach is just apathy at its worst.

The economy started to grow, though it had not yet completed all the adjustments in shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Factors identified as potentially contributing to the downturn include: returning troops which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, changes in fiscal and monetary policy, and changes in price expectations.


This post WWI recession was a tweek where the workforce was shifting, I think a simlar event occcurred at the end of WWII and we had small recessions. What we're in now, at Jan 2009, was a total meltdown of the banks, auto industry, even acft have had several orders cancelled. Our biggest exports were tanking, our entire monetary system in failure and you want to LET THE MARKET FIX ITSELF, as if a 7-month post WWI recession is the same as this mess. I think that's another way of saying, "I don't give a fuck."

Now I realize the 1920 recession is classified differently than the post WWI brief recession, but there is obvioulsy a connect. Whenever a war ends there is often an adjustment period where we have excess war funds, a lot of people from teh military in the private sector looking for work and many other events that don't occur in peacetime.

SO AGAIN, MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR, DO YOU WANT TO DO NOTHING WITH TJHIS CURRENT RECESSION?

________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_recessions

So there have been 47 recessions and your argument is that 1, the one in 1920 was a hands off recession and you consider that statistically significant?

Comparing early 20th century recessions to 19th century recessions here is an exerpt defining those: In the 19th century, recessions frequently coincided with financial crises.

There was no financial crisis in 1920, in fact, just the opposite; excess war funds. So to say that in a time of excess funds then and a time of perhaps the worst or second worst financial meltdown and the recovey/response s/b teh same, well, that is very Reaganesque of you.

And this:

Because of the great changes in the economy over the centuries, it is difficult to compare the severity of modern recessions to early recessions.

So to say the 1920 recession recovery s/b the same as the 2007 recession is just nuts.

Furthermore, as you going to say Hoover doing just what they did in 1920 was a good thing? I don't expect an answer to that.

Quote

The tough stance? He took the politically convenient stance, not the tough stance.

Yes, he took a tough stance and is trying to recover rather than ignore, which seems to be popular, esp amongst your crowd. Is he receiving criticism for the 787B? Yes. Would it have been more politically correct and say he has faith in the American market and let it fix itself? Yes. So he isn't doing the political thing.

Quote

Now that's almost laughable.

I wrote: The result is a GDP that is very healthy and a market that is way ahead of schedule. Unemployment is yet to come.

Is that wrong? Laugh as you may, but please address the comment; is the GDP doing well? Is teh market ahead of recovery? Does the unemp rate need fixing? What is laughable and what is incorrect? I don't expect you to answer.

Quote

I'm thinking we should focus on where it came from as well.

In response to me saying: I'm not a fan of C4C either, but that encompassed 3/787th of the stimulus cash, so is that your best argument? I'm thinking a mainline arg would be to focus on where a larger amount of cash went.

Again, 3/787th is less statistically significant than 1/47th of all recessions, yet you bypass the point. Let's talk about where most of the stimulus went, that which has been spent, and see what the benefits or not have been. I don't expecct you to do so.

Quote

Another "It's Bush's fault". How surprising.

But you don't want to comment on the GHWB/Clinton prescription of raising taxes and cutting spending, leading to the stretch of economic growth, just protect baby Bush. I wrote:

Planners? Are you talking congess and the WH? If you look at the 'planners' since 1980, when things started going awry, the, uh, planners Reagan and GWB were the real problem, planners GHWB and Clinton the cure.

Come on, tell me how Reaganomics worked out. Then Reaganomics II, AKA GWB; how'd that work out?

Quote

And if you think what we have is true capitalism, you're an idiot.

I don't think any system in history has been pure, I have said this many times. We are predominantly Capitalistic and it isn't working well; time for a change. Can you bust on Communism when they are our largest creditor? Of course they are so successful in part due to their oppression of their people, but Socialistic countries aren't doing as bad as we are and they provide from a great social structure to true cradle-to-grave, yet they aren't nearly as bad as us. Where's the money going? To the rich? To the overblown military? Sure not going to the people; sounds like Communism from a diffferent slant to me.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

You didn't comment on the fact that we're near GD times, so worrying about what might become hyperinflation, maybe, could be, is ridiculous. It's like wondering what kind of 20" wheels you will have on your new Escalade when you can't afford a car yet. This is more than cart before the horse logic.

Do you realize how ridiculous of an argument that is?

Quote

And why are you worrying about reducing the cost of things when we are in a major financial emergency. I mean, would you tell your wife you need to save money and not buy teh kids medications for their cancer? When you're in emergency times, you do WHATEVER you have to, unlesss you're the Republican Party of course, then you just spend willy-nilly and blame teh Dems, even tho virtually all the debt is the very well-documented doing of the right.

Wow, another "it's Bush's fault", surprised yet again.

***
Right, thinking like your heroes; tax cuts my friends.


The thinking I'm referring to is trying to "fix" short term symptoms of long-term problems.

Quote

Under Clinton the USD went from 1 USD = 1.28 CAD, to, 1 USD = 1.55 CAD. Then under your hero we fell below them for a stretch, what brough the USD back up to about 1 USD = 1.20 CAD was the market crash where people yanked out of the market and threw in bonds. Now that the market is flying, investors are yanking out of bonds and throwing into the market, we are now 1 USD = 1.05 CAD.

"Bush's fault" yet again? Nice. Care to compare the dollar to the price of gold since Jan. 2009?

Jan. 21 - $852.70/oz
Nov. 25 - $1192.10/oz

Quote

Cut spending and raising taxes is the best way to go for a strong dollar; tax cuts my friends and waste 100's of billions on the military in time of peace is the way to trash your country. And yet you think your way is valid, other's are wrong. Just bizzare logic.

Ignoring half of the equation (spending) like you repeatedly do isn't logic at all.

***
I'll ask again: SO WHEN BESIDES NEVER ARE YOU GOING TO TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD DO TO FIX YOUR PRESIDENT'S MESS?


I'd start by not doing the exact things that he did, which is exactly what Obama is doing - continuing the mess, only much, much faster.

After that? Tell congress they're not getting my signature on anything until there's a balanced budget.

Next? Get out of the middle east.

Then? End the war on drugs.

Then? End the Fed.

Then? Flat tax.

It's a long list.

Quote

I ask, what would you do? If your feelings are hurt about me thinking it's Bush's fault, omit that part. What would you do to fix the mess Obama inherited? Not a tough question, straight forward; answer it.

1. Not make it worse, which is all that Obama is doing.

Quote

Those were the 3 choices, you just gave sarcastic commentary, you didn't state what you would do. You inferred you would, "let the market fix itself" as Hoover did, but you didn't state as much; IS THAT YOUR SELECTION OF THE 3? It's so unusual that Republicans don't nail down what they would do.

If you think hoover didn't intervene to try and fix things, you can add History to the list of things you don't understand, in addition to basic economics.

Quote

We've been in a recession since mid-late 2007, ALL of the numbers/indicators were looking far worse and declining and you want Obama to just let the market fix itself?

Well, government certainly hasn't fixed it, which isn't surprising, considering they created it.

Quote

You do realize Hoover tried the same approach and we don't know how many died, probably at least a million, many say several million. See. recessions/depressions are all diff animals, just like every skydive is its own animal. Some recessions drag in, some are caused by a sharp event that throws us in immediately. Some are caused by the stock market, some by labor, some by trade, etc; a million diff reasons why we get into them, but to claim a lassiz faire approach is just apathy at its worst.

How many recessions has government "fixed"?

Quote

Our biggest exports were tanking, our entire monetary system in failure and you want to LET THE MARKET FIX ITSELF, as if a 7-month post WWI recession is the same as this mess. I think that's another way of saying, "I don't give a fuck."

If I didn't give a fuck, I'd say let the politicians have at it. How can the politicians fix something that they couldn't even predict, despite the fact that a few prominent economists were telling them exactly what was going to happen?

Quote

So there have been 47 recessions and your argument is that 1, the one in 1920 was a hands off recession and you consider that statistically significant?

You think I have the time to go through 47 of them? The fact that there's been 47 of them is a pretty good indicator that keynesianism has failed, along with the government, and the fed.

Quote

So to say the 1920 recession recovery s/b the same as the 2007 recession is just nuts.

You're right, Harding didn't fuck it up like Bush did and Obama is doing.

Quote

Furthermore, as you going to say Hoover doing just what they did in 1920 was a good thing? I don't expect an answer to that.

Hoover didn't do what Harding did, he did the opposite. Once again: History, try it sometime.

Quote

Is that wrong? Laugh as you may, but please address the comment; is the GDP doing well? Is teh market ahead of recovery? Does the unemp rate need fixing? What is laughable and what is incorrect? I don't expect you to answer.

I wouldn't expect you to understand it if I did.