• 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

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
Thank you for confirming that Republicans also live in a fantasy world. The war in Iraq was lost the minute we took out a dictator and left a power vacuum behind.

And, yes, I'm aware that the Democrats were just as much to blame for that blunder as the Republicans were. I'm not even trying to make a partisan argument. Both parties suck IMO.


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

If they really bought Chrysler Corp for the 1.3B that they (admittedly foolishly) spent there, then they got the bargain of the year. The government never owned Chrysler.

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?

Oh, I'm quite aware that the cost of health insurance is a real drag on employers. I said as much in the post you quoted.

But, blaming all of that on "Obamacare" is just disingenuous. The cost has been out of control for a very long time.


This is an act, right? What is the Obama tax proposal?

To continue the "Bush" tax cuts. At least, that's what happened.
 
Thank you for confirming that Republicans also live in a fantasy world. The war in Iraq was lost the minute we took out a dictator and left a power vacuum behind.

That of course is your opinion, the world disagreed with you as did the entire Clinton Administration prior to Bush taking office


If they really bought Chrysler Corp for the 1.3B that they (admittedly foolishly) spent there, then they got the bargain of the year. The government never owned Chrysler.

Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center

Where do you think the billions came from if not the taxpayers and what did they get for that money

Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center

Oh, I'm quite aware that the cost of health insurance is a real drag on employers. I said as much in the post you quoted.

But, blaming all of that on "Obamacare" is just disingenuous. The cost has been out of control for a very long time.

Forcing business to pay for personal health insurance isn't the role of the Federal Govt. it is a state issue and yes that additional costs has led to reduced employee hours and more part time employees


To continue the "Bush" tax cuts. At least, that's what happened.

That was never the Obama proposal but was forced upon him by Congress mostly Democrats
 
Thank you for confirming that Republicans also live in a fantasy world. The war in Iraq was lost the minute we took out a dictator and left a power vacuum behind.

That of course is your opinion, the world disagreed with you as did the entire Clinton Administration prior to Bush taking office


If they really bought Chrysler Corp for the 1.3B that they (admittedly foolishly) spent there, then they got the bargain of the year. The government never owned Chrysler.

Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center

Where do you think the billions came from if not the taxpayers and what did they get for that money

Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center

Oh, I'm quite aware that the cost of health insurance is a real drag on employers. I said as much in the post you quoted.

But, blaming all of that on "Obamacare" is just disingenuous. The cost has been out of control for a very long time.

Forcing business to pay for personal health insurance isn't the role of the Federal Govt. it is a state issue and yes that additional costs has led to reduced employee hours and more part time employees


To continue the "Bush" tax cuts. At least, that's what happened.

That was never the Obama proposal but was forced upon him by Congress mostly Democrats
 
That of course is your opinion, the world disagreed with you as did the entire Clinton Administration prior to Bush taking office




Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center

Where do you think the billions came from if not the taxpayers and what did they get for that money

Obama Arranges Takeover of GM and Chrysler; Auto Workers Union Gets Huge Stake | National Legal and Policy Center



Forcing business to pay for personal health insurance isn't the role of the Federal Govt. it is a state issue and yes that additional costs has led to reduced employee hours and more part time employees




That was never the Obama proposal but was forced upon him by Congress mostly Democrats

Oh, I see. It's the Democrats who wanted to continue the "Bush" tax cuts then.

And the government never did "take over" the US auto industry. A take over would mean that the government was running it, which never did happen.

The taxpayers did lose a chunk of TARP money when Chrysler was sold to Fiat, however.

And, no, the government shouldn't be "forcing" employers to pay for employee health insurance, but most of them did anyway before "Obamacare" came along. All the mandate did was to even the playing field a bit.

But, as long as there is a Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health care, the feds have a strong incentive to try to rein in the costs a bit. So far, they've not been terribly effective, but it is something that will have to be done sooner or later, and isn't anything that the state/local governments are going to be able to do.
 
Oh, I see. It's the Democrats who wanted to continue the "Bush" tax cuts then.

And the government never did "take over" the US auto industry. A take over would mean that the government was running it, which never did happen.

The taxpayers did lose a chunk of TARP money when Chrysler was sold to Fiat, however.

And, no, the government shouldn't be "forcing" employers to pay for employee health insurance, but most of them did anyway before "Obamacare" came along. All the mandate did was to even the playing field a bit.

But, as long as there is a Medicare, Medicaid, and VA health care, the feds have a strong incentive to try to rein in the costs a bit. So far, they've not been terribly effective, but it is something that will have to be done sooner or later, and isn't anything that the state/local governments are going to be able to do.

Come on, Ditto, this is ridiculous and I am not in the mood to play this game. Democrats knew that the people didn't want higher taxes even though Obama wanted those taxes raised. A Democrat has never seen a dollar that they don't want to spend to keep their power and Conservatives know there isn't enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite on social programs

Medicare is self funded and controlled by the govt. which is why it is broke. Medicaid is also broke, the VA is a disaster but Obamacare is going to work? You don't see the liberal arrogance there?

Sorry but the govt. did run GM and Chrysler before selling Chrysler. GM was called Government Motors for a reason. Chrysler was spun off quickly but that doesn't change the reality that both were govt. owned thus taxpayer owned. Taxpayers are still on the hook for billions and that book is now closed with billions in losses
 
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

First off, please get the post formatting right. It's not that difficult.

Secondly, high inflation in and of itself does not make a financial crisis. A financial crisis occurs when physical and financial assets begin to abruptly lose nominal value. Due to the nature of inflation, this didn't really happen in the early 1980's. The economic downturn of 1980 was self induced!

Being book smart is the problem with far too many people as they ignore human behavior and how economic policy affects them.

This is a worthless comment, as it doesn't in any way pertain to the topic or our discussion. It's just your go to response when refutes your nonsense, and has led to you receiving multiple thread bans and suspensions.

It was not meant to be an attack only pointing out reality.

You are relying on your perception as the source for reality. Just because i understand how to analyze data in a sophisticated manner doesn't mean my position is in anyway less valid. In fact, it's the opposite.

110 million on taxpayer funded welfare!!

A bogus Fox News article does you little good.

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?

My charts were in reference to financial crises and deleveraging. If you would like, i will provide you with a chart depicting historical debt service as a % to both GDP and the federal budget in a little bit!

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

You lack the ability to understand data and the various methods of interpretation. All you have to offer is partisan hostility.
 
Come on, Ditto, this is ridiculous and I am not in the mood to play this game. Democrats knew that the people didn't want higher taxes even though Obama wanted those taxes raised. A Democrat has never seen a dollar that they don't want to spend to keep their power and Conservatives know there isn't enough money to fund the liberal spending appetite on social programs

Medicare is self funded and controlled by the govt. which is why it is broke. Medicaid is also broke, the VA is a disaster but Obamacare is going to work? You don't see the liberal arrogance there?

Sorry but the govt. did run GM and Chrysler before selling Chrysler. GM was called Government Motors for a reason. Chrysler was spun off quickly but that doesn't change the reality that both were govt. owned thus taxpayer owned. Taxpayers are still on the hook for billions and that book is now closed with billions in losses
Again, if the government actually purchased Chrysler for the money that was loaned as a government bailout, then they got the deal of the century. If you're right, then the federal government is one astute business entity.

And GM being called Government Motors was a joke, not reality.

and the reason Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble is the soaring cost of health care, which has been going on for decades unchecked, and has nothing to do with "Obamacare."

And while "conservatives" (are there really any left in Washington?) realize that government spending is out of control and unsustainable, neither of the two major parties seem to realize it or be willing to do anything about it. You do realize that spending tends to go up regardless of who is in power, don't you?
 
First off, please get the post formatting right. It's not that difficult.

Secondly, high inflation in and of itself does not make a financial crisis. A financial crisis occurs when physical and financial assets begin to abruptly lose nominal value. Due to the nature of inflation, this didn't really happen in the early 1980's. The economic downturn of 1980 was self induced!



This is a worthless comment, as it doesn't in any way pertain to the topic or our discussion. It's just your go to response when refutes your nonsense, and has led to you receiving multiple thread bans and suspensions.



You are relying on your perception as the source for reality. Just because i understand how to analyze data in a sophisticated manner doesn't mean my position is in anyway less valid. In fact, it's the opposite.



A bogus Fox News article does you little good.



My charts were in reference to financial crises and deleveraging. If you would like, i will provide you with a chart depicting historical debt service as a % to both GDP and the federal budget in a little bit!



You lack the ability to understand data and the various methods of interpretation. All you have to offer is partisan hostility.

You are right, Kush, you really aren't worth it, because a Census article is posted in Fox News the article therefore is false. Talk about partisan bull****? You are full of it.
 
Again, if the government actually purchased Chrysler for the money that was loaned as a government bailout, then they got the deal of the century. If you're right, then the federal government is one astute business entity.

And GM being called Government Motors was a joke, not reality.

and the reason Medicare/Medicaid are in trouble is the soaring cost of health care, which has been going on for decades unchecked, and has nothing to do with "Obamacare."

And while "conservatives" (are there really any left in Washington?) realize that government spending is out of control and unsustainable, neither of the two major parties seem to realize it or be willing to do anything about it. You do realize that spending tends to go up regardless of who is in power, don't you?

Didn't read the article I posted, did you? Not surprising.
 
You are right, Kush, you really aren't worth it, because a Census article is posted in Fox News the article therefore is false. Talk about partisan bull****? You are full of it.

They pick and choose their interpretation of welfare as a means of deceiving their viewers. You fell hook line and sinker, and continue to spread the disinformation at every chance.
 
They pick and choose their interpretation of welfare as a means of deceiving their viewers. You fell hook line and sinker, and continue to spread the disinformation at every chance.

Yep, you got it, money going from the taxpayers to another individual isn't welfare at all, it is that taxpayer's responsibility, isn't it? You simply cannot believe how wrong you have been and how duped you have been by the leftwing rhetoric. Sorry, but you have no credibility at all but you do post pretty charts. Too bad you don't understand that individuals are dependent more now than ever before on taxpayer support
 
U.S. Consumer Spending Declines 0.1% in July
Personal Spending Falls for First Month Since January


'WASHINGTON—Consumer spending fell in July and income growth was weak, signs that cautious consumers could restrain economic growth in the second half of the year.

Personal spending, which measures what Americans pay for everything from sneakers to doctor visits, declined a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in July from a month earlier, the Commerce Department said Friday. It was the first time spending fell in a month since January.

Personal income, reflecting income from wages, investment, and government aid, rose 0.2% in July—the smallest monthly increase of the year.

"Looks like the pilot threw the economy's engines into reverse at the start of the third quarter," said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ. Forecasts that the economy would grow at a strong 3% clip in the third quarter "look increasingly unrealistic if consumers don't return to the shops and malls."'


U.S. Consumer Spending Declines 0.1% in July - WSJ


Must be the weather...all this snow.
 
Google is your friend, not sure where you get your information but you are completely wrong

Yes, there is a plethora of information on Google. Some of it is even accurate. This one sounds about right:

We own 65% of Chrysler? What does that really mean?

To the average taxpayer, not much. The U.S. government owns just under 10% of Chrysler, not 65%. (They own around 61% of GM - that may be where you got your number from.) Controlling interest (about 68%) is owned by the retirement funds of the United Auto Workers union, with Fiat owning a big chunk (about 20%) and the Canadian government owning the rest.

However, the U.S. government has stated that they do not intend to take actions regarding the corporate governance of the company, and plan to sell their stake (probably to Fiat) as soon as it is feasible. They have similar plans for their much larger stake in G.M.
 
Nice try, the Democrat Party and the UAW were hand in hand and it was the Unions that got ownership with money from the taxpayers. If you think the govt. didn't own the company then you really should by a bridge I have for sale in the swamps of Florida

If you think it did, then you have far more confidence in the government's deal making ability than I do.
 
The results show how effective the govt. is as the taxpayers lost billion in that deal and Chrysler is now owned by the Italians. Is that a success to you?

Purchasing a company for 10% of its value is a deal that is beyond the ability of government IMO. Perhaps you have another opinion.
 
Nice try, the Democrat Party and the UAW were hand in hand and it was the Unions that got ownership with money from the taxpayers. If you think the govt. didn't own the company then you really should by a bridge I have for sale in the swamps of Florida

The government owned 20 percent of Chrysler stock which it sold to Fiat.

Fiat gained a 20 percent Chrysler holding as part of the U.S. automaker’s government-backed restructuring in 2009.

Fiat to Buy Rest of U.S. Government
 
The government owned 20 percent of Chrysler stock which it sold to Fiat.



Fiat to Buy Rest of U.S. Government

Interesting headline.

From the link:

Fiat will pay $500 million for the U.S. government’s remaining 6 percent stake in Chrysler Group LLC, ending the Treasury’s involvement in the automaker as Fiat moves to consolidate control.

So, the statement that the government sold Chrysler to Fiat is 6% correct. That's more correct than I thought it would be.
 
Back
Top Bottom