|
|||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share  |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
05-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
ism
Quote:
|
|
#2
05-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Was just watching Lou Dobbs on CNN and it sounds like things are slowly picking up but sadly the job market is still lagging but then with all the out sourcing that's not surpising, So looks like Obama's plan is working :D Jennifer
|
|
#3
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
|
#4
05-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Pure and simple: if capitalism was allowed to work -- and given a chance to properly re-balance itself exactly as a capitalistic system SHOULD -- then Obama should NOT be pouring billions of dollars into these "weak and failing companies" you're talking about. Instead, by the pure definition of capitalism, these companies SHOULD be allowed to fail or go under completely -- or at the very least as we're now seeing with Chrysler, be forced into filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in order to TRY and survive, but do it through actual across the board reorganization efforts. For example, and again using Chrysler, instead of wasting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on them which simply got flushed away for nothing (which is what we've done to date), they should have received NO bailout...they should have been forced into Chapter 11 much sooner...at which point a Bankruptcy Judge would have had the court appointed power to say to all concerned: "Okay, Management, this is what YOU now have to do to save this company, the sacrifices I'm ordering you to make...okay, dealerships, this is what YOU have to do and the sacrifices you have to make...oh, ye! And you Union people, I'm also ordering YOU to renegotiate and restructure your contracts for the same reason. You want to save your jobs, these are the concessions you'll have to make TOO." Would it have been painful for Chrysler to do a Chapter 11 sooner? Yes, but look where we are -- we've wasted billions and now we ARE at that same place. Would it have put people out of work? Yes, but that is now going to happen ANYWAY. So again, we've now wasted BILLIONS of dollars simply delaying the inevitable. Is this the proper way to do things? Yes, because you're now letting the actual market decide. That's capitalism at work. Well, unless you're like Obama and you believe in propping up companies that continue to manufacture products that nobody wants to buy, so now the government sticks its nose in and says "Ah, fuck it. We'll keep it afloat just for the hell of it. Here, take some free money on us." And if that's what Obama supporters believe in, please PM me and tell me where I can get or download the filing forms to apply for some of these bailout funds. Because if I knew that I could get free money from the government that would just be given to me to continually produce a product that no one has any interesting in actually buying or owning, I would have gotten in on this gravy train a long time ago! |
|
#5
05-04-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#6
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#7
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#8
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#9
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Obama spending
Quote:
Very well put! I love you.   
|
|
#10
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes Jennifer, but... Quote:
Quote:
You people provide such great entertainment 
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
|
#11
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
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
|
|
#12
05-06-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
quotes
Quote:
 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.
|
|
#13
05-05-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
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?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
