• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. economy bounces back sharply

Conservative said:
Too bad it took this long to get back to some economic growth.
Click to expand...

That's what happens following a once in a generation financial crisis. Need I remind you that between 2007 and 2009, more wealth was lost than during any time in our history (nominal basis)?
 
Kushinator said:
That's what happens following a once in a generation financial crisis. Need I remind you that between 2007 and 2009, more wealth was lost than during any time in our history (nominal basis)?
Click to expand...

You can remind me but it was paper wealth that was lost. Tell me what the 20 million still unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are still losing? This is a jobless recovery and it all has to do with the Federal reserve manipulating this recovery and businesses buying back their own stock instead of investing and growing. How about telling me what percentage of GDP should be govt. spending? That is what is propping up this economy, not private investment.
 
Conservative said:
You can remind me but it was paper wealth that was lost.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the millions of Americans who never recovered!

Tell me what the 20 million still unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers are still losing?
Click to expand...

Fallacy of composition; just because someone is unemployed doesn't mean they cannot suffer additional losses in net wealth.

How about telling me what percentage of GDP should be govt. spending? That is what is propping up this economy, not private investment.
Click to expand...

How about we expose your desire to be a hypocrite:

fredgraph.png
 
Kushinator said:
That's what happens following a once in a generation financial crisis. Need I remind you that between 2007 and 2009, more wealth was lost than during any time in our history (nominal basis)?
Click to expand...

I suspect that many in the general public don't realize that the household deleveraging that took place in the face of diminishing household wealth following the financial crisis created a substantial economic headwind that had not been associated with recent economic downturns. Hence, there likely is an expectations-outcomes gap.
 
Kushinator said:
Tell that to the millions of Americans who never recovered!



Fallacy of composition; just because someone is unemployed doesn't mean they cannot suffer additional losses in net wealth.



How about we expose your desire to be a hypocrite:

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...

As I recall Republicans took over the purse strings in 2011 and we had sequester. We also have over 7 trillion dollars added to the debt.

Provide proof that Millions haven't recovered?

My desire is to show people who the true hypocrites are, the big spending Libertarians promoting massive govt. Still waiting for you to explain what economic programs led to a 4.2% GDP growth which still puts the yearly GDP growth at less than 2%?
 
Conservative said:
As I recall Republicans took over the purse strings in 2011 and we had sequester. We also have over 7 trillion dollars added to the debt.
Click to expand...

And as i recall, temporary measures have all but dissipated, reducing the need for such an extraordinary deficit. The underlying factor is the level economic growth relative to government spending which we are witnessing is consistent within post-Keynesian economic thought. Shall we all rejoice that capitalism, once again, has been saved by understanding its tendency toward financial collapse?

Provide proof that Millions haven't recovered?
Click to expand...

Negative proof fallacy.

My desire is to show people who the true hypocrites are, the big spending Libertarians promoting massive govt.
Click to expand...

I promote a responsive government that takes action when needed. Action was taken, it certainly was needed, and now you want to pout about your expectations not being met. Your belief of "getting government out of the way" when businesses were failing at levels not seen since the 1930's, is purely delusional.

Still waiting for you to explain what economic programs led to a 4.2% GDP growth which still puts the yearly GDP growth at less than 2%?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of "programs". Deleveraging has bottomed out.

fredgraph.png


This graph depicts the rate of change of real total debt per capita. A negative figure means households are deleveraging; and the relative (and absolute) minima occurred in the fourth quarter of 2010.
 
Kushinator said:
And as i recall, temporary measures have all but dissipated, reducing the need for such an extraordinary deficit. The underlying factor is the level economic growth relative to government spending which we are witnessing is consistent within post-Keynesian economic thought. Shall we all rejoice that capitalism, once again, has been saved by understanding its tendency toward financial collapse?



Negative proof fallacy.



I promote a responsive government that takes action when needed. Action was taken, it certainly was needed, and now you want to pout about your expectations not being met. Your belief of "getting government out of the way" when businesses were failing at levels not seen since the 1930's, is purely delusional.



It's not a matter of "programs". Deleveraging has bottomed out.

fredgraph.png


This graph depicts the rate of change of real total debt per capita. A negative figure means households are deleveraging; and the relative (and absolute) minima occurred in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Click to expand...

Financial collapse is what liberals promote to generate more govt. How many banks were forced to take TARP and how quickly did they pay TARP back. You are the one who seems to be buying the rhetoric and ignoring the results.

I love liberals, debt per capital? Why don't you generate some other numbers to justify the 250 billion dollars a year in debt service, the fourth highest budget item that will balloon when interest rates rise
 
Republicans arguing that the economy can't possibly be doing well remind me of the Democrats prior to the election of '08 arguing that the war in Iraq couldn't possibly be doing well. The Democrats turned out to be right. Let's hope the Republicans don't.
 
Conservative said:
Financial collapse is what liberals promote to generate more govt.
Click to expand...

Financial crises are a rarity. Generalizing this once in a generation event as a matter of partisan malfeasance destroys what little credit you have to begin with.

How many banks were forced to take TARP and how quickly did they pay TARP back. You are the one who seems to be buying the rhetoric and ignoring the results.
Click to expand...

How many banks made use of various lending facilities offered in addition to TARP funding? Your position is based purely eristic partisanship, which is why you are confused with terms like debt per capita.

I love liberals, debt per capital? Why don't you generate some other numbers to justify the 250 billion dollars a year in debt service, the fourth highest budget item that will balloon when interest rates rise
Click to expand...

Interest rates cannot rise without the requisite economy growth necessary to support a rise in the cost of capital. Nevertheless, even if interest rates were to double tomorrow, how much would that translate into additional expenses?
 
Kushinator;1063695989]Financial crises are a rarity. Generalizing this once in a generation event as a matter of partisan malfeasance destroys what little credit you have to begin with.
Click to expand...

How did the financial crisis as you call it affect you and your family? This crisis or so called Great Recession didn't affect nearly as many people as the 81-82 Double dip recession that affected every American because it was compounded by a worse financial crisis, high inflation



How many banks made use of various lending facilities offered in addition to TARP funding? Your position is based purely eristic partisanship, which is why you are confused with terms like debt per capita.
Click to expand...

TARP was forced on a number of banks and never changed behavior. It rewarded bad behavior thus making it more of a media generated crisis than a true financial one. I confuse no such thing, I look at numbers, true numbers with people's picture on them. Obama's poor leadership or total lack of positive leadership prolonged a crisis for personal gain and his economic and foreign policy incompetence is on full display. Percentage change, debt per capita mean absolutely nothing compared to actual debt service and people unemployed/under employed/discouraged



Interest rates cannot rise without the requisite economy growth necessary to support a rise in the cost of capital. Nevertheless, even if interest rates were to double tomorrow, how much would that translate into additional expenses?
Click to expand...

That is true but that is going to happen because the private sector economy is going to grow because it has to grow. That sector will do whatever it has to do to stay in business and grow meaning that once those 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time or at least most of them, then there is going to be more demand that products and that drives up inflation which affects not not only personal income but debt service which is now the fourth largest budget item.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Republicans arguing that the economy can't possibly be doing well remind me of the Democrats prior to the election of '08 arguing that the war in Iraq couldn't possibly be doing well. The Democrats turned out to be right. Let's hope the Republicans don't.
Click to expand...

Sorry but unless you think 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers along with a 2% GDP growth after a recession is a good economy, then yours is typical of far too many, naive, gullible, and poorly informed. Far too many look at percentage change and ignore the base those percentages are based upon plus they ignore the actual numbers. We are 7 years after the beginning of the recession and over 5 years after the end of the recession and the employment numbers are exactly the same as before the recession, the debt is 7 trillion more, and the GDP growth is about 370 billion a year, much lower than the Bush average or any other Presidential average. Sorry but apparently I see what you and others refuse to look at, the average American and how they are being hurt by liberal incompetence and attempts to redistribute wealth.

Did you not read that 1/3 of Americans or over 110 million are on some form of govt. welfare assistance funded by the taxpayers? That excludes SS and Medicare. How is that a good economy and showing things improving?
 
Conservative said:
Sorry but unless you think 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers along with a 2% GDP growth after a recession is a good economy, then yours is typical of far too many, naive, gullible, and poorly informed. Far too many look at percentage change and ignore the base those percentages are based upon plus they ignore the actual numbers. We are 7 years after the beginning of the recession and over 5 years after the end of the recession and the employment numbers are exactly the same as before the recession, the debt is 7 trillion more, and the GDP growth is about 370 billion a year, much lower than the Bush average or any other Presidential average. Sorry but apparently I see what you and others refuse to look at, the average American and how they are being hurt by liberal incompetence and attempts to redistribute wealth.

Did you not read that 1/3 of Americans or over 110 million are on some form of govt. welfare assistance funded by the taxpayers? That excludes SS and Medicare. How is that a good economy and showing things improving?
Click to expand...

The "Bush average" was doing fairly well up until the end at least.

And yes, there are far and away too many dependent on government subsidies of one sort or another.

And, while the POTUS is the CIC, he does not run the economy.

But, anyway, thanks for confirming what I said about Republicans talking about how the economy can't possibly be doing well.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The "Bush average" was doing fairly well up until the end at least.

And yes, there are far and away too many dependent on government subsidies of one sort or another.

And, while the POTUS is the CIC, he does not run the economy.

But, anyway, thanks for confirming what I said about Republicans talking about how the economy can't possibly be doing well.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that Presidential policies such as the 842 billion stimulus, recycling of TARP, Obamacare, take over of GM/Chrysler, promotion of class warfare, talks of tax hikes don't affect the economic decision making of private industry?

The Bush results I have posted include the disastrous 2008 numbers and we came out of recession in June 2009 yet Obama's numbers remain stagnant at best and makes you wonder what we really got for the 7 trillion added to the debt. What Obama has proven is incompetence was ignored as people bought the rhetoric. 4 more million realized that in 2012 but not enough to remove him. Whoever takes over in 2017 is going to have a real mess to clean up.

The economy isn't doing well and the numbers support it.
 
Conservative said:
How did the financial crisis as you call it affect you and your family?
Click to expand...

A most irrelevant question.

This crisis or so called Great Recession didn't affect nearly as many people as the 81-82 Double dip recession that affected every American because it was compounded by a worse financial crisis, high inflation.
Click to expand...

High inflation is not a financial crisis, it is simply a rise in prices. The Volcker Fed induced a recession by raising short term interest rates to the point where long term expectations edged downward while the Reagan administration applied the proper policy to help alleviate the economic reaction to Fed policy. Lowering of taxes has a dis-inflationary effect, as it supports a reduction in total costs. Combined with a massive spike in federal expenditures (inflation adjusted federal expenditures) depicted below, the U.S. economy overcame the downturn by employing various Keynesian policies.

fredgraph.png


Yet during this time, total net worth (adjusted for inflation) never declined by any meaningful level, where as in 2009, a most severe financial crisis occurred.

fredgraph.png


TARP was forced on a number of banks and never changed behavior. It rewarded bad behavior thus making it more of a media generated crisis than a true financial one.
Click to expand...

TARP was a pure capital injection as a means of mitigating insolvency fears among international depositors who hold trillions of dollars in U.S. banks and money markets. It just so happened to have better results than a resolution trust style method where a financial entity would be created under the control of the U.S. Treasury, and would take on the most grotesque debts, thereby providing a cash injection.

Percentage change, debt per capita mean absolutely nothing compared to actual debt service and people unemployed/under employed/discouraged
Click to expand...

Now you are being just plain ignorant!

The annual rate of change of debt per capita is a forward indicator of economic growth. Your obsession with elementary analysis of lagging indicators has gotten the best of you yet again. Current trends show the numbers are actually improving across the board! Employment is up, while the number of unemployed and discouraged workers has persistently declined.

That is true but that is going to happen because the private sector economy is going to grow because it has to grow. That sector will do whatever it has to do to stay in business and grow meaning that once those 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work full time or at least most of them, then there is going to be more demand that products and that drives up inflation which affects not not only personal income but debt service which is now the fourth largest budget item.
Click to expand...

Do you expect economic growth to increase while government revenue (which is explicitly tied to economic growth) holds constant? :lol: Only in your wildest partisan fantasy!
 
Kushinator said:
A most irrelevant question.



High inflation is not a financial crisis, it is simply a rise in prices. The Volcker Fed induced a recession by raising short term interest rates to the point where long term expectations edged downward while the Reagan administration applied the proper policy to help alleviate the economic reaction to Fed policy. Lowering of taxes has a dis-inflationary effect, as it supports a reduction in total costs. Combined with a massive spike in federal expenditures (inflation adjusted federal expenditures) depicted below, the U.S. economy overcame the downturn by employing various Keynesian policies.

fredgraph.png


Yet during this time, total net worth (adjusted for inflation) never declined by any meaningful level, where as in 2009, a most severe financial crisis occurred.

fredgraph.png




TARP was a pure capital injection as a means of mitigating insolvency fears among international depositors who hold trillions of dollars in U.S. banks and money markets. It just so happened to have better results than a resolution trust style method where a financial entity would be created under the control of the U.S. Treasury, and would take on the most grotesque debts, thereby providing a cash injection.



Now you are being just plain ignorant!

The annual rate of change of debt per capita is a forward indicator of economic growth. Your obsession with elementary analysis of lagging indicators has gotten the best of you yet again. Current trends show the numbers are actually improving across the board! Employment is up, while the number of unemployed and discouraged workers has persistently declined.



Do you expect economic growth to increase while government revenue (which is explicitly tied to economic growth) holds constant? :lol: Only in your wildest partisan fantasy!
Click to expand...

It really is a shame that people like you spend all your time with your noses in the books posting irrelevant charts that ignore that people make up those numbers. You really need to get out more and realize what is happening in this country. It is absolutely stunning that we have 110 million Americans in this economy under Barrack Obama's economic plan dependent on the taxpayers for welfare and yet the economy is bouncing back nicely according to many. It is absolutely stunning that a 7 trillion dollar additional debt is ignored because it is only 70 percent increase over what he inherited but the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt was a disaster because it was triple what he inherited as people never look at what that 1.7 trillion cost in debt service vs. the 7 trillion. Why is that? It is stunning that we have today the same number of working Americans as we had in December 2007 when the recession began which defies population growth and ignores the 1 million we continue to have discouraged who have stopped looking for work.

I expect economic growth under Obama never to increase significantly enough to put the 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work or the 7.5 million part time employees looking for full time jobs. That doesn't seem to phase people like you.

Thanks, yes I am ignorant because I worked 35 years in the business world dealing with actual people not charts and numbers like you. It really is a shame that we have people like you who never deal with real people and easily write off individual problems because you don't see them on your charts

Govt. spending definitely increases GDP but not to the level it does in Europe and it is the govt. spending that is keeping the GDP growth somewhat positive but will never get enough people back to work. That may work in Europe where the govt. spending is the leading producer of GDP but not in this country where consumer spending is the largest component of GDP.

What I find disturbing how so many people are book smart but street stupid as they have no idea what drives individual economics including apparently their own. It really is time to admit what many of us know, liberalism, Keynesian economic policies are absolute failures and it is liberal arrogance that keeps throwing money at the problem never addressing the problems
 
Conservative said:
It really is a shame that people like you spend all your time with your noses in the books posting irrelevant charts that ignore that people make up those numbers. You really need to get out more and realize what is happening in this country. It is absolutely stunning that we have 110 million Americans in this economy under Barrack Obama's economic plan dependent on the taxpayers for welfare and yet the economy is bouncing back nicely according to many. It is absolutely stunning that a 7 trillion dollar additional debt is ignored because it is only 70 percent increase over what he inherited but the 1.7 trillion Reagan debt was a disaster because it was triple what he inherited as people never look at what that 1.7 trillion cost in debt service vs. the 7 trillion. Why is that? It is stunning that we have today the same number of working Americans as we had in December 2007 when the recession began which defies population growth and ignores the 1 million we continue to have discouraged who have stopped looking for work.

I expect economic growth under Obama never to increase significantly enough to put the 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers back to work or the 7.5 million part time employees looking for full time jobs. That doesn't seem to phase people like you.

Thanks, yes I am ignorant because I worked 35 years in the business world dealing with actual people not charts and numbers like you. It really is a shame that we have people like you who never deal with real people and easily write off individual problems because you don't see them on your charts

Govt. spending definitely increases GDP but not to the level it does in Europe and it is the govt. spending that is keeping the GDP growth somewhat positive but will never get enough people back to work. That may work in Europe where the govt. spending is the leading producer of GDP but not in this country where consumer spending is the largest component of GDP.

What I find disturbing how so many people are book smart but street stupid as they have no idea what drives individual economics including apparently their own. It really is time to admit what many of us know, liberalism, Keynesian economic policies are absolute failures and it is liberal arrogance that keeps throwing money at the problem never addressing the problems
Click to expand...

Instead of addressing anything i stated, you resorted to ad homs and attacked straw men, while attempting to shout over me. There was no financial crisis in the early 1980's (there almost was in 1989). You have been shown there was a once in a generation crisis in 2008-2009. Expecting a quick recovery from such a dire situation signifies you are innocent with respect to economic history.

Your position is purely partisan, lacking any remnants of coherent economic logic.
 
Kushinator said:
Instead of addressing anything i stated, you resorted to ad homs and attacked straw men, while attempting to shout over me. There was no financial crisis in the early 1980's (there almost was in 1989). You have been shown there was a once in a generation crisis in 2008-2009. Expecting a quick recovery from such a dire situation signifies you are innocent with respect to economic history.

Your position is purely partisan, lacking any remnants of coherent economic logic.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on your definition of financial and anyone who says inflation isn't a financial problem is out of touch with reality. I realize what your books tell you but more importantly i understand what people are feeling and experiencing. You really need to get out more.

You think my position is partisan? Wow, really? and yours isn't? I have no idea what your solutions are but I do know what works, conservative economic principles, individual wealth creation and incentive not a massive govt. who takes trillions out of the market in the form of all the taxes we pay.

I lived and worked during both recessions and there was no comparison. The 81-82 recession affected every American, this one didn't
 
Conservative said:
Guess it depends on your definition of financial and anyone who says inflation isn't a financial problem is out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem reading the words i type? Even though inflation in and of itself isn't a "financial problem", i never stated anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that high inflation does not make a financial crisis; much to the contrary, deflation is explicitly tied to financial crises. Study the nature of financial panics throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries for a stronger understanding of the concept.

I realize what your books tell you but more importantly i understand what people are feeling and experiencing. You really need to get out more.
Click to expand...

What is this obsession with "my books" and what you perceive they "tell me"? If you cannot address my comments, no need to go off topic and attack weak strawmen.

You think my position is partisan? Wow, really? and yours isn't? I have no idea what your solutions are but I do know what works, conservative economic principles, individual wealth creation and incentive not a massive govt. who takes trillions out of the market in the form of all the taxes we pay.

I lived and worked during both recessions and there was no comparison. The 81-82 recession affected every American, this one didn't
Click to expand...

If calling out the hypocrisy of those who wish to see the country burn during the opposition's administration is partisan... i guess i am guilty. But please do provide some bit of evidence where i mix partisan rhetoric into my financial and economic analysis.

Your anecdotal comparison carries ZERO weight. As you've already admitted, you were in a different position in your life, with differing levels of liabilities, assets, and cash flows. How you perceive a situation does not necessarily reflect how the rest of the country felt. According to you, the 1980-81 recession was the worst economic downturn in the history of the world. Sorry, but only the most hardline partisans would agree.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator;1063697818]Do you have a problem reading the words i type? Even though inflation in and of itself isn't a "financial problem", i never stated anything of the sort. I simply pointed out that high inflation does not make a financial crisis; much to the contrary, deflation is explicitly tied to financial crises. Study the nature of financial panics throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries for a stronger understanding of the concept.
Click to expand...

Really? so high inflation doesn't make a financial crisis? Wow, thanks so much for that incredibly stupid statement. High inflation drives up interest rates and that led to a misery index between 20-30 which of course in your world isn't a financial crisis for the individual. Sorry, but your book smarts is incredibly naive and very poor.You really need to get out more



What is this obsession with "my books" and what you perceive they "tell me"? If you cannot address my comments, no need to go off topic and attack weak strawmen.
Click to expand...

Being book smart is the problem with far too many people as they ignore human behavior and how economic policy affects them. It was not meant to be an attack only pointing out reality. 110 million on taxpayer funded welfare!! Where is that on your charts? Where are the 7.5 million long term part time workers on your chart? Where are the 1 million discouraged workers on your chart? Where is the debt service on the 17.6 trillion dollar debt on your chart?



Your anecdotal comparison carries ZERO weight. As you've already admitted, you were in a different position in your life, with differing levels of liabilities, assets, and cash flows. How you perceive a situation does not necessarily reflect how the rest of the country felt. According to you, the 1980-81 recession was the worst economic downturn in the history of the world. Sorry, but only the most hardline partisans would agree.
Click to expand...

I will put my experience and personal expertise up against anything you have to offer. That is a losing battle for you

I lived and worked during both recessions and there was no comparison. The 81-82 recession affected EVERY AMERICAN, this one didn't. How did this recession affect you and your family?
 
Conservative said:
Don't you think that Presidential policies such as the 842 billion stimulus, recycling of TARP, Obamacare, take over of GM/Chrysler, promotion of class warfare, talks of tax hikes don't affect the economic decision making of private industry?

The Bush results I have posted include the disastrous 2008 numbers and we came out of recession in June 2009 yet Obama's numbers remain stagnant at best and makes you wonder what we really got for the 7 trillion added to the debt. What Obama has proven is incompetence was ignored as people bought the rhetoric. 4 more million realized that in 2012 but not enough to remove him. Whoever takes over in 2017 is going to have a real mess to clean up.

The economy isn't doing well and the numbers support it.
Click to expand...

The 842 billion stimulus had to have been passed by Congress.

recycling of TARP? TARP was passed by congress during the Bush administration. when was it recycled?

Obamacare has caused the rising cost of health care to at least level off a bit. There is much, much more that has to be done. As it is, we have actually created a system that is more expensive than a government run one. That takes some doing, but we've done it.

take over of GM was a bad idea, but still had to have been approved by Congress didn't it?

Chrysler was taken over by Fiat, not by the government.

promotion of class warfare: Who is promoting class warfare?

Now, remember: I didn't say that the economy was in great shape. What I said was that Republicans are invested in saying that it isn't going well, just as the Democrats were invested in saying that the war in Iraq wasn't going well. You keep confirming what I said.
 
Dittohead not!;1063697875]The 842 billion stimulus had to have been passed by Congress.
Click to expand...

It was passed by a Democrat Controlled Congress with zero Republican support making it partisan legislation that only bailed out Democrat donors.

recycling of TARP? TARP was passed by congress during the Bush administration. when was it recycled?
Click to expand...

When it was paid back, did it reduce the deficit? No, it was spent on other things that Obama wanted. Read the history of TARP, included in the CBO Deficit projections but repayment never went to reduce that deficit

Obamacare has caused the rising cost of health care to at least level off a bit. There is much, much more that has to be done. As it is, we have actually created a system that is more expensive than a government run one. That takes some doing, but we've done it.
Click to expand...

Rising cost of health care isn't causing high unemployment, Obamacare is. When the economy is as fragile as it was you don't put out a program that stifles employment

take over of GM was a bad idea, but still had to have been approved by Congress didn't it?
Click to expand...

No, it was done with TARP money

Chrysler was taken over by Fiat, not by the government.
Click to expand...

Chrysler was sold by the govt. to the Italians

promotion of class warfare: Who is promoting class warfare?
Click to expand...

What news do you listen to? What do you call promoting increased taxes on the rich and greater spending on the poor?

Now, remember: I didn't say that the economy was in great shape. What I said was that Republicans are invested in saying that it isn't going well, just as the Democrats were invested in saying that the war in Iraq wasn't going well. You keep confirming what I said.
Click to expand...

Republicans are pointing out reality, Democrats live in fantasy
 
Conservative said:
It was passed by a Democrat Controlled Congress with zero Republican support making it partisan legislation that only bailed out Democrat donors.



When it was paid back, did it reduce the deficit? No, it was spent on other things that Obama wanted. Read the history of TARP, included in the CBO Deficit projections but repayment never went to reduce that deficit



Rising cost of health care isn't causing high unemployment, Obamacare is. When the economy is as fragile as it was you don't put out a program that stifles employment



No, it was done with TARP money



Chrysler was sold by the govt. to the Italians



What news do you listen to? What do you call promoting increased taxes on the rich and greater spending on the poor?



Republicans are pointing out reality, Democrats live in fantasy
Click to expand...

So, it was a fantasy that the war in Iraq was going badly? Really? It seems to me that both parties live in a fantasy world.

The government sold Chrysler? Really? That sounds to me like fraud, selling something that you don't own.

I think you'd be hard pressed to support the statement that Obamacare, and not the high and rising cost of health care, stifles employment. Are you aware that the cost of health care actually exceeds the cost of the entire federal bureaucracy exclusive of federally funded health care by about 50%? That's the real problem.

I'm not sure just who is promoting increased taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor. I'm sure there must be someone.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, it was a fantasy that the war in Iraq was going badly? Really? It seems to me that both parties live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...

Can't get over the war, can you? The war was going badly until the surge and then Bush won the war, Obama lost the peace and sorry but that is reality and the numbers are there if you care to read them

The government sold Chrysler? Really? That sounds to me like fraud, selling something that you don't own.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about the Govt, thus the U.S. Taxpayers owned Chrysler and GM, the Govt. on behalf of the Taxpayers sold Chrysler

I think you'd be hard pressed to support the statement that Obamacare, and not the high and rising cost of health care, stifles employment. Are you aware that the cost of health care actually exceeds the cost of the entire federal bureaucracy exclusive of federally funded health care by about 50%? That's the real problem.
Click to expand...

Never ran a business did you? Check out the financial statement of any business particularly small businesses and tell me how small businesses pay for Obamacare? Tell me why healthcare is a FEDERAL issue when state taxpayers fund the uninsured? Are you aware of what the real costs are for healthcare? Govt. regulations!! Malpractice insurance?

I'm not sure just who is promoting increased taxes on the rich and more spending on the poor. I'm sure there must be someone.
Click to expand...

This is an act, right? What is the Obama tax proposal?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom