Barack Obama

[transjen]

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't? All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't?

Except that it's not the same thing, Jen. The core reason for bailing out Wall Street is that it served a UNIVERSAL purpose across the board -- in short, we ALL have money invested in Wall Street (whether you like it or not, things like your pensions and college saving funds and whatnot are back-boned BY Wall Street and as stocks and bonds). Not to mention, we obviously ALL keep our money in banks. So again, you can't let the financial system melt down because of the ripple effect it could have across the ENTIRE economy -- not to mention the fact that MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people would be losing their savings and pensions and whatnot. So propping up the banking system only makes sense. Though I would agree that paying out extravagant bonuses should be cut off. After all, you don't deserve a bonus for "a job well done" if your company is taking billion dollar losses.

ON THE OTHER HAND...if you let companies like Chrysler go under -- or as I noted above simply let them slip into a Chapter 11 for financial protection from creditors while they reorganize themselves -- that serves three purposes.

First, the market is self-correcting itself, which is always the healthiest way to fix an economy.

Second, you're not taking public taxpayer money and using it to prop up a private company. Which is always bad because then you've entered the slippery slope of "Why should my tax dollars go to saving Chrysler? Hey, my local florist shop down the block is going under. So if we're just gonna give out money to businesses that can't sustain themselves...that can't drum up the business they need to stay afloat...then why doesn't he get a few hundred grand from the government to stay in business TOO? Why give Chrysler money, but not the next guy in line?

Answer: Because if you DO give it to the next guy in line, just how long of a line are you intending to create? What is the cut-off point? And, in turn, just how much of the public's taxpayer dollars are you planning to continually spend?

And third, unlike propping up the banks, no one is hurt by Chrysler going under -- well, aside from the actual workers, but that's the price ANY company pays for going under. My point being, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH competition out there, which means that even if Chrysler goes under nobody's buying choices are impeded upon. You will still have PLENTY of choices from whom to buy a car. So the consumer isn't affected either. Hell, look at it this way: the consumer is obviously NOT affected by Chrysler going under since by pure logic the very reason that they are folding is BECAUSE they were building something that no one wanted.

[CreativeMind]

Originally Posted by transjen

All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

Reagan inherited one SERIOUSLY fucked-up mess from Jimmy Carter, and yet still turned things around and oversaw one of the largest expansions of economic growth in all of American history. People were HAPPY with the Reagan years, which would explain WHY he won over Carter and only 4 years later won reelection in a 49 state crushing landslide. And keep in mind that to this day, in all polls of the American people, Reagan STILL comes out as one of the top 5 FAVORITE Presidents in all of American history.

Now, did Reagan leave a deficit? Sure he did. But he also had to fix so many of the things that Carter screwed up that he had to spend even as we were growing. But even the amount Reagan left was able to be reigned back in by Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led GOP Congress, which only goes to show that Reagan deficit was actually something that was manageable. In other words, Reagan spend "about" the right amount. So to compare the Reagan deficit to W. Bush's isn't accurate -- they weren't even in the same league.

Furthermore, if you've followed this thread, you'd see that those of us that are more Conservatively minded WERE mad at W. (and still are) for the spending that he did. Hey, we're playing fair. That's why he pissed us off, too. In the end, Bush spent too much and created a $1 TRILLION dollar deficit all his own.

Of course, right now I'd be ECSTATIC if we only had Bush's deficit to deal with. Because now we've got Obama who is just one year alone...hell, in just the first 4 months of his administration...will now TRIPLE that number to between $2.5 and a full $3 Trillion.

And even more jaw-dropping and truly insane, Obama's economic plan calls for trillion dollar deficits every year for the next 10 years. So if we're gonna do a side-by-side comparison, Bush's ONE trillion deficit compared to Obama's THIRTEEN trillion looks amazingly great right now to a helluva lot of people and economists, most of whom are now actively using the phrase "an unsustainable deficit" because they feel this is all going to come back and SERIOUSLY bite us in the ass over the next decade, as the bills come due on Obama's programs.

So, I'm glad you think CNN told you things are getting better -- but they're not. The only reason Wall Street was up about 200 points today is because the housing market numbers weren't nearly as bad as people expected...the only problem being, the only reason they WERE good is because some of the TARP money was reaching banks (and in turn lenders) to close on pre-existing and outstanding home sale mortgages. The problem with that being that many of the people now getting these bank loans -- in other words, who had their paperwork held up -- are just like the people who got us into the mess to begin with. Namely, they shouldn't be buying homes anyway. So in some regards this is like a dog chasing his own tail and running in circles. Once again, we're only setting ourselves up for another fall down the road.

And the other reason Wall Street was up today was because people were scrambling to scoop up stocks before the Treasury Department officially releases the banking industry "Stress Test" results -- which the Obama crew purposefully held back because it's already been leaked that the banks they tested did NOT do as well as it had been hoped, and thus even MORE tax payer money will probably have to be given to them.

[transjen]

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS you're pissed off that Obama won and you were the sameway when Clinton won and wecked your dreams of a hundred year reign of straight GOP ruling the whitehouse. Now if trickle down is so wonderful why the mess from W after 8 years of trickle down? Because you can have two wars and only give hugh tax cuts to the super rice and jam it up everyone elses rear end , So fine you hate Obama because he's going to undo every fucked up mess created by W but you have W to thank because he destroyed your party and he's why Obama won hopeful they bring warcrimes up on him Jennifer

[randolph]

Originally Posted by transjen

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS you're pissed off that Obama won and you were the sameway when Clinton won and wecked your dreams of a hundred year reign of straight GOP ruling the whitehouse. Now if trickle down is so wonderful why the mess from W after 8 years of trickle down? Because you can have two wars and only give hugh tax cuts to the super rice and jam it up everyone elses rear end , So fine you hate Obama because he's going to undo every fucked up mess created by W but you have W to thank because he destroyed your party and he's why Obama won hopeful they bring warcrimes up on him Jennifer

Hey Jen,
Very well put!
I love you.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Jen,
Very well put!
I love you.

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

Originally Posted by randolph

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings.

Originally Posted by randolph

the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy!

You people provide such great entertainment

[transjen]

The idea that this debt can be paid off by the end of his first term is to silly to comment on and even with a best case serino he'll only mange to pay down half the debt but in realty i think 1/3 is possiable if both parties trim the pork and tell the special intrests groups to shove off, I feel one hugh savings can be made if we stop all perks to illegal aliens we have enought problems helping US citizens, And another way is only giving tax cuts and credits to companies that has they whole work force here in the US keep the jobs here and then you'll collect more tax rev

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

You people provide such great entertainment

Well, I guess that's what we are here for.

Anyway, I read where the current massive spending is a smaller percentage of GNP than what Roosevelt spent in the 1930s. In the 1980s I thought the Reagen debt was the end of the world but Clinton helped clear that up. Supposedly, the recovery from the 1930s depression took so long was that Roosevelt didn't spend enough!

By the way, its fun to chat with intelligent conservatives, they are so rare nowadays.

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

BEYOND THE ICONS.... In light of the silly Republican in-fighting this week over whether or not to obsess over Ronald Reagan, MSNBC's "First Read" said, "The issue of Reagan reminds us of the Kennedy-obsession Democrats had for decades. One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer). So, this Reagan issue may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over."

That's probably a misread on how Dems perceive JFK. Jonathan Chait explained:

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired. It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it. But Republicans have been doing so with regard to Reagan for twenty years now.

I think that's exactly right. There have been various discussions in Democratic circles over the last couple of decades about the future direction of the party, what policy priorities should be emphasized, how to grow the party, etc. It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost. That's not to say his memory isn't widely revered; it is. But when considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK. Kennedy is looked to more as a symbol of inspiration; Reagan is considered some kind of timeless, all-knowing sage. In GOP circles, to reference his name or ideology is to be self-evidently correct.

To borrow "First Read's" word, Democrats have never had this "habit" with regards to Kennedy.

Ramesh Ponnuru suggested this points to a certain vacuity on the left, since conservatives' "reverence for Reagan" is rooted in "philosophical content."

But this misses the point. The left's "philosophical content" is rooted outside the memory of JFK. Some on the left don't even care for Kennedy's approach to policy (see Yglesias, Matt). As Chait added, liberalism's "philosophical content does not consist of latching onto an old president, glossing over the reality of his record, and trying to recreate all of his actions whether or not they have any bearing upon the circumstances of the present day.... The 'philosophical content' of Reagan-worship is a cult-like process for circumscribing original thought."

It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic...

It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost.

When considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK.

This post pretty much sums it up. Democrats want a president who makes them feel good. They don't really give a hoot about (or in many cases even comprehend) policy.

And then in contrast, republicans want a president who can get the job done. What is creepy is that the democrats think that is creepy. The presidency is not a popularity contest. The person in office is required to run the largest super power the world has ever known (and btw, there used to be two superpowers before Reagan came along. Think about that.). That is done through policies and leadership. Reagan demonstrated both very well and history shows he is one who got it right.

Originally Posted by randolph

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired.

One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer).

Yes definitely much longer. Why do you think they elected Obama... a young stylish presidential candidate? And the vast majority of democrats who elected him could not tell you what is policies were. LOL! Now THAT is creepy.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

So bailing out the US automakers is socialism but W bailing out wallstreet wasn't?

W shouldn't have had to bail out wall street. This isn't really a capitalistic system though is it? Not after the government has already stepped in and required banks to make loans to minorities who were not able to repay the loans. After that happened, it wasn't purely capitalism anymore.

Originally Posted by transjen

All that was need was more GOP leadership and Regannogmics after all look what 8 years of deregalation and trickle down did for us Regan's trickle down only lead to a sea of red ink in the 80s and W was even worse but it appears that the GOP is fine with a sea of red ink as long as there is tax cuts for billonairs but the moment a dem gets in power all of a sudden they are worried about the debit

Jen, we've already gone over regulation, yet you keep holding on to that myth. Republicans were asking for regulation. Dems didn't want it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8

As for the rest, Obama's red ink is 2.5 times greater than the red ink from all of Bush's 8 years - including Bush's wall street bailout. Please explain how this debt is no worse than W's debt?