An honest question to liberals/Democrats

[BallsBrunswick]

If you play with this game long enough, you'll see it would actually be pretty easy to balance the budget and address the deficit over the next few years.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

All we need to do is get this country out of Afghanistan and return to Clinton-era tax levels. We don't even need to mess with the military budget that much if we do a few simple things. The Bush Tax cuts and wars are the some of the most insane things in American history. It's amazing how much those things screwed this nation's future up.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

The election was a choice between 2 candidates.

Romney's economic plan was to

1. cut taxes by 20% with no accounting for the impact of that revenue loss on the deficit/debt

2. drastically increase military spending with no accounting for how it would be paid for

3. not touch Medicare for ten years (yes he did promise that) while repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act that had extended Medicare's solvency to 2024 from 2016.

4. Somehow reduce the deficit/balance the budget by making enormous cuts in domestic spending - a political impossibility, a fantasy.

...why would any person with any amount of fiscal responsibility vote for that?

This was all the biggest reason (along with his Afghanistan proposals) that made me so anti-Romney. The guy's financial plans made absolutely no sense.

 

[zeke]

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........

People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.

The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....

Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.

You have every radical right wing fox/Beck programmed propaganda piece down pat! Well done

He does, he does.tupid fuking fool isnt smart enough to understand that the bulk of rational thinking Americans are glad the auto industry in functioning.

The stupid fuk evidentally didn't hear ALL the asshole rethugs try and make his bull shit arguments about the auto industry.

And where did that line of thought lead to? Was it the White House? Keep it up idiot and in 2014 the rethugs will lose the House of Reps.

 

[Toro]

So, at at time when we were losing 770,000 jobs a month, Obama chose to protect the workers over the financial sector who caused the collapse in the first place

Which was the political angle, wasn't it? That, and all the dough the unions had shoveled into his campaign.

Obama over-rode contract law to bail out the auto companies, something that never happened with the financial bailout. With the financial bailout, the government was guaranteeing part of the capital stack. In the auto bailout, the government changed the rights within the capital structure. I knew liberal lawyers who were incensed at this.

And FTR, both the Bush and Obama administrations made it abundantly clear that the financial bailout - as odious as we may have thought it was - was not about protecting jobs in the financial sector. It was about protecting jobs in the whole economy.

Drastic times called for drastic measures. Let them fail was not an option

In the end....it worked

Yes, it worked very well. Obama ran much stronger amongst white blue collar males in the Rust Belt than he did throughout the rest of the country, about 10 points better. Romney was right, though. It was mainly political. The auto companies already failed, if by "fail" you mean they went through bankruptcy. Obama just re-ordered who got what in the bankruptcy process. Like so many other companies that filed during that time and since come out, they would have kept operating. But because the unions gave Obama a ton of money, he put their interests first. That's politics. The Democrats demagogued the issue expertly.

 

[Seawytch]

 

[rdean]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

Do you honestly believe Republicans can solve a problem they created?

2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008

As Romney Repeats Trade Message, Jobs moved to China - NYTimes.com

Here is Romney on his "blind trust". Remember, Romney is the master of the "blind trust". What does this tell you?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DVKWhPibw]Romney: "The Blind Trust is an Age Old Ruse" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vel]

Prior to the bailouts the government tried to get the auto companies to restructure, to get someone else to buy in, to arrange private financing

The US Government was the only entity available to stand behind the auto companies

That doesn't mean the companies would be liquidated. It's false to assume that causality. Liquidation is a process that takes months or years. It has little to do with bankruptcy financing. Providing DIP financing may have saved some jobs and stop the company from grinding to a halt, but there was little reason to think the company would be liquidated. Many companies filed during that time, big ones like Harrahs and TXU, and few were liquidated. Most were restructured and ownership changed hands.

However, Obama did subvert contract law to put the unions at the top of the claims list ahead of bond holders, a purely political move that paid off for him big time.

So, at at time when we were losing 770,000 jobs a month, Obama chose to protect the workers over the financial sector who caused the collapse in the first place

So you think there isn't a problem with Obama setting aside the law if you think something else suits your needs better? Why do we have contract laws at all then?

 

[martinjlm]

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........

People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.

The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....

Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.

If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them

Not only would the auto companies not be there, but large supplier companies coming out of bankruptcy during that period (Delphi, Visteon), large supplier companies that were not in bankruptcy at the time (Borg Warner, Robert Bosch GMbH, Magna) suppliers to those large suppliers just listed, and neighborhood family owned businesses (stores, pizza shops, barbershops, etc) would have gone under. Some of the larger more solvent suppliers like Borg Warner, Bosch, and Magna would likely have weathered the storm, but their US and Canadian operations would have been severely damaged and they would have had to rely on their European and Asian arms to limp along. This is the part that was spoken often but largely ignored by some in Washington.

 

[rdean]

We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Go on tax us some more........

People refuse to think for themselves. And there is one reason that Obama was re-elected.

The unions bought the lies that he saved the auto industry. That's why Chrysler is now owned by Italians....

Had the auto companies gone through a normal bankruptcy, without government interference the chances are that the outcome wouldn't be a lot different than it is today. And what Obama did was put them through a bankruptcy where the Unions got everything they wanted and the Salaried people were screwed over. Especially in their pensions.

If the auto companies went through normal bankruptcy, they wouldn't be here today. 2009 was not normal times. Going through a normal bankruptcy proceeding while the financial sector was collapsing would have meant liquidation. There was nobody willing to put money into the auto companies in 2009...we tried
Until the government came in and saved them

Not only would the auto companies not be there, but large supplier companies coming out of bankruptcy during that period (Delphi, Visteon), large supplier companies that were not in bankruptcy at the time (Borg Warner, Robert Bosch GMbH, Magna) suppliers to those large suppliers just listed, and neighborhood family owned businesses (stores, pizza shops, barbershops, etc) would have gone under. Some of the larger more solvent suppliers like Borg Warner, Bosch, and Magna would likely have weathered the storm, but their US and Canadian operations would have been severely damaged and they would have had to rely on their European and Asian arms to limp along. This is the part that was spoken often but largely ignored by some in Washington.

Republicans don't understand business. For some reason, they say a business is a "charity" who give us jobs if we only bribe them with enough money. The problem is they keep the money.

 

[Salt Jones]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

No and that's why we are pushing it.

 

[candycorn]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

No. Both parties have no clue and if the other party does...it will be blocked.

Vote values.

 

[daveman]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

The election was a choice between 2 candidates.

Romney's economic plan was to

1. cut taxes by 20% with no accounting for the impact of that revenue loss on the deficit/debt

2. drastically increase military spending with no accounting for how it would be paid for

3. not touch Medicare for ten years (yes he did promise that) while repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act that had extended Medicare's solvency to 2024 from 2016.

4. Somehow reduce the deficit/balance the budget by making enormous cuts in domestic spending - a political impossibility, a fantasy.

...why would any person with any amount of fiscal responsibility vote for that?

Doubling the national debt is fiscally responsible?

This is the part where you mindlessly repeat your "It's Bush's fault!!" tropism.

 

[SFC Ollie]

You asked for it you got it, I can only hope that by 2016 we are not so far in the toilet that we cannot get out.


Remember that the average household is already making less and paying more... And this is what you fools think is good for the country... Enjoy........

 

[rightwinger]

Which was the political angle, wasn't it? That, and all the dough the unions had shoveled into his campaign.

Obama over-rode contract law to bail out the auto companies, something that never happened with the financial bailout. With the financial bailout, the government was guaranteeing part of the capital stack. In the auto bailout, the government changed the rights within the capital structure. I knew liberal lawyers who were incensed at this.

And FTR, both the Bush and Obama administrations made it abundantly clear that the financial bailout - as odious as we may have thought it was - was not about protecting jobs in the financial sector. It was about protecting jobs in the whole economy.

Drastic times called for drastic measures. Let them fail was not an option

In the end....it worked

Yes, it worked very well. Obama ran much stronger amongst white blue collar males in the Rust Belt than he did throughout the rest of the country, about 10 points better. Romney was right, though. It was mainly political. The auto companies already failed, if by "fail" you mean they went through bankruptcy. Obama just re-ordered who got what in the bankruptcy process. Like so many other companies that filed during that time and since come out, they would have kept operating. But because the unions gave Obama a ton of money, he put their interests first. That's politics. The Democrats demagogued the issue expertly.

Word to the wise for corporations

If you go to the private sector for financing during a bankruptcy, you can protect your investors

If you go to the taxpayers for financing during a bankruptcy, you better be prepared to protect your workers

 

[rightwinger]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

The election was a choice between 2 candidates.

Romney's economic plan was to

1. cut taxes by 20% with no accounting for the impact of that revenue loss on the deficit/debt

2. drastically increase military spending with no accounting for how it would be paid for

3. not touch Medicare for ten years (yes he did promise that) while repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act that had extended Medicare's solvency to 2024 from 2016.

4. Somehow reduce the deficit/balance the budget by making enormous cuts in domestic spending - a political impossibility, a fantasy.

...why would any person with any amount of fiscal responsibility vote for that?

Doubling the national debt is fiscally responsible?

This is the part where you mindlessly repeat your "It's Bush's fault!!" tropism.

Bush doubled the national debt, Reagan tripled it

republican fiscal responsibility

 

[HUGGY]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

An honest question to liberals/Democrats

Why do stupud RWers frequently interchange the word "honest" with STUPUD?

Fair question...

 

[jillian]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

not all democrats are liberal....

not all social liberals are fiscal liberals

the reason you guys can't appeal to the middle is you don't understand that.

austerity is a failure. using greece as an example simply proves that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

Why do you have to start your question with an insult? I'm give my opinions here daily. If you you don't think I'm being honest, FUCK YOU. Why do you CONS think you can slip this "I'm so superior shit" by us. Lurk a little while longer before posting, noob. We already have enough clueless assholes around here.

....so says the clueless asshole.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The election was a choice between 2 candidates.

Romney's economic plan was to

1. cut taxes by 20% with no accounting for the impact of that revenue loss on the deficit/debt

2. drastically increase military spending with no accounting for how it would be paid for

3. not touch Medicare for ten years (yes he did promise that) while repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act that had extended Medicare's solvency to 2024 from 2016.

4. Somehow reduce the deficit/balance the budget by making enormous cuts in domestic spending - a political impossibility, a fantasy.

...why would any person with any amount of fiscal responsibility vote for that?

Doubling the national debt is fiscally responsible?

This is the part where you mindlessly repeat your "It's Bush's fault!!" tropism.

Bush doubled the national debt, Reagan tripled it

republican fiscal responsibility

And Obama is working on doubling down again........DUH.....

 

[Sundial]

Do you honestly believe that your party's economic and fiscal path is remotely sustainable? If you do, then how do you figure? I would like real world examples.

If we look at countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, the U.K, Argentina and Venezuela-- all of which we seem to be trying to emulate-- they are all facing an economic disaster greater than what the U.S. is currently facing, yet you seemingly figure that it will be "different" in the case of the U.S.

It's said insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Anyway, enlighten me.

Actually, the US isn't emulating any of those countries.

Take Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France - all members of the EU, and all attempting to institute "austerity" budgets. They're cutting spending and raising taxes. The result is shrinking economies, widening deficits, and increasing unemployment.

Now look at the US: here we've chosen not to raise taxes or cut spending and our economy has grown as a result, and unemployment has steadily fallen.

So if we followed the example of the EU countries - a path that's already been proven not to lead nowhere - that would be ridiculous. But that's not what we're doing.