• 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!

Economy limping back to strength

Keep telling yourself that....

The only thing the bailouts did was to take money from us and give it to the banks and Wall Street and all the people who acted improperly and drove us to this state in order to remove the consequences of their actions. Meanwhile, Main Street was left to suffer and left to weather the resulting collapse. The bailouts and such went to the rich. The "stimulus" like cash for clunkers and all that did nothing either. There was a marginal increase in the number of people looking to buy a new car over those who were going to do so anyway. Same with housing. The taxpayers spent a lot of money for very little gain.
 
The only thing the bailouts did was to take money from us and give it to the banks and Wall Street and all the people who acted improperly and drove us to this state in order to remove the consequences of their actions. Meanwhile, Main Street was left to suffer and left to weather the resulting collapse. The bailouts and such went to the rich. The "stimulus" like cash for clunkers and all that did nothing either. There was a marginal increase in the number of people looking to buy a new car over those who were going to do so anyway. Same with housing. The taxpayers spent a lot of money for very little gain.

You have to wonder: would it have been better if Pulse, Pluss, Cirrus, Star etc... were unable to operate? IMHO hell no, it would have turned into utter chaos.
 
Are you against the infrastructure (regardless of its size), unemployment extensions, and state funding aspects of the total package? If so, i am curious as to why.

I am against all that. Why? Because the government can't create wealth.
 
No doubt the Libbos are going to spin this by saying that if they hadn't stepped in, it would be even worse. But, if the un-employment rate isn't any better than 7.5% by 2012, PBO might as well start figureing how much furniture he wants to steal on his way out of the WH, heading back to Illinois.

Hell, the unemployment rate is clost to 17% and they're barely reporting double digits. They'll have no problem pretending unemployment is at 6.0% in 2012, especially with their willing accomplices in the mainstream propaganda organs.
 
Shouldn't you be looking in the mirror and admitting you were wrong about the stimulus? I think you blame your own faulty opinions on everyone else but yourself.

Hmmm....

....the unemployment rate BS (Before Stimulus) was 8% or so, the unemployment rate AS (After Stimulus) is 10.2%.

And your Messiah is suggesting MORE stimulus.....mmmm....why? He shooting for 25% to push His Messiah-Care scam?
 
They're not going to have enough time to see the Entire WH.

Well, that's true enough. The Messiah is taking so many road trips on his never-ending Apology and Giveaway Tour they probably haven't had a chance to catalogue everything they're going to take with them.

But there's the next three years (fortunately only three years) for them to catch up.
 
Clintons Will Return Any Gifts Found to Belong to White House - The New York Times



It was a mistake, not stealing. The stuff taken was both on a list of gifts to the White House, and on the list of gifts to the Clintons. The mistake was remedied.

Yeah, most people know what's theirs, and what isn't, and don't have to have their "mistake" published in the New York Times before confessing and returning the objects to their rightful owner.

Bill: "Hill, you bought that 18th Century Thomas Jefferson writing desk at the Salvation Army in Little Rock, didn't you?"

Hill: "I thought you bought that at a yard sale. Sure you did! Remember that time in the Rose Garden? Besides, the New York Times hasn't printed anything so don't worry about it."
 
Last edited:
I am against all that. Why? Because the government can't create wealth.

Of course it cannot, and i never stated it could. However, it has been proven (time and again) that government can spur demand.
 
Of course it cannot, and i never stated it could. However, it has been proven (time and again) that government can spur demand.

It can spur the demand for welfare dependency.
 
It can spur the demand for welfare dependency.

You should know better by now, cheesy one liners that possess little or no merit will not work with me. You have to do better APDST! Or why bother replying?
 
The Stimulus did nothing.
The economy is recovering because deflation lowered prices and thus, people are taking advantage of that, and spending more. The businesses now have business to carry out.
The stimulus was pathetic. Nobody saw any effect.

I dunno. It dropped the value of the dollar and convinced the chinese to start getting rid of theirs. It's my understanding other nations are now trying to figure out what other currency they can use to conduct international trade with. That's quite an achievement for an administration that's only a few months old. :mrgreen:
 
It can spur the demand for welfare dependency.

yup.


source
Welfare rolls, which were slow to rise and actually fell in many states early in the recession, now are climbing across the country for the first time since President Bill Clinton signed legislation pledging "to end welfare as we know it" more than a decade ago.

Twenty-three of the 30 largest states, which account for more than 88% of the nation's total population, see welfare caseloads above year-ago levels, according to a survey conducted by The Wall Street Journal and the National Conference of State Legislatures. As more people run out of unemployment compensation, many are turning to welfare as a stopgap.

The biggest increases are in states with some of the worst jobless rates. Oregon's count was up 27% in May from a year earlier; South Carolina's climbed 23% and California's 10% between March 2009 and March 2008. A few big states that had seen declining welfare caseloads just a few months ago now are seeing increases: New York is up 1.2%, Illinois 3% and Wisconsin 3.9%. Welfare rolls in a few big states, Michigan and New Jersey among them, still are declining.

The recent rise in welfare families across the country is a sign that the welfare system is expanding at a time of added need, assuaging fears of some critics of Mr. Clinton's welfare overhaul who said the truly needy would be turned away.....
 
You should know better by now, cheesy one liners that possess little or no merit will not work with me. You have to do better APDST! Or why bother replying?


Talking points about how the Libbos welfare government is going to save us all don't work on me, either. I guess we're even.
 
Talking points about how the Libbos welfare government is going to save us all don't work on me, either. I guess we're even.

Not quite. During recessions in which "non libbos" were president, welfare and/or spending most surely increased. Let me guess, you are against unemployment aid as well?!
 
Shouldn't you be looking in the mirror and admitting you were wrong about the stimulus? I think you blame your own faulty opinions on everyone else but yourself.
Yeah, the government makes the economy. Private industry is unnecessary and evil.

obama_hitler_stalin-jpg.jpeg
 
Yeah, the government makes the economy. Private industry is unnecessary and evil.

Well it does.

Without government there would be anarchy and in anarchy there would be no private industry.

On top of that government provides a structure to society that make it possible for private industry to start and work and flourish depending on the involvement level of government.

If you seriously think that private industry would work better if there was no government, then you are frankly seriously misguided.
 
Yes government lays the framework - but overly intrusive government can hinder or destroy private business.

Look at GM. GM approaches the government for some money and guarentees to enable them to avoid bankruptcy. Government says okay as long as GM presents an approved plan for how to recover. GM works at it, Government turns them down, grabs control of GM, and then forces it into bankruptcy. The CEO of GM makes a public announcement that "If the government wanted us to declare bankruptcy, they could have just said no at the beginning and saved the taxpayers some money." This CEO is then 'fired' by the President of the US.

So in a recession and financial crisis, when we spent over $1T on saving the million dollar jobs in the financial sector that caused this in the first place, we spent about $15B in loan guarentees to force GM into bankruptcy, destroying the pensions and insurance benefits of the GM and UAW retirees, destroying the investments in GM stock that many of their previous workers and other small investors have, and firing over a third of the GM employees. Many of whose jobs are now overseas by order of the Car Czar. This after spending another $800B in order to save and create jobs in the US.

Yes, this is government 'involvement' and control of the economy.

So come on over and visit my neck of the US where in a two month period this year the income of my county dropped by over 40% and unemployment has increased to over 30% - almost entirely through government 'help'. And you wonder why Michigan is about to lose over 25% of their representatives in Congress?
 
Well it does.

Without government there would be anarchy and in anarchy there would be no private industry.

On top of that government provides a structure to society that make it possible for private industry to start and work and flourish depending on the involvement level of government.

If you seriously think that private industry would work better if there was no government, then you are frankly seriously misguided.
You're misguided in think that the economy is better off without private industry. But it's not surprising given your Stalinist ideology. Maybe we should put all CEOs into gulags to teach them a lesson.
 
Well it does.

Without government there would be anarchy and in anarchy there would be no private industry.

On top of that government provides a structure to society that make it possible for private industry to start and work and flourish depending on the involvement level of government.

If you seriously think that private industry would work better if there was no government, then you are frankly seriously misguided.

Private industry almost always works better than government. There are certain things the government is better at and has proper say in (maintaining a military say); but beyond that its meddling usually only complicates the matter and costs a lot of money.
 
Any recovery in the immediate term is based solely on certainty. Wall Street likes good times. It likes bad times. It hates uncertain times.

The more and more Obama's agendas are failing or getting snagged in Congress, the more Wall Street can project. The best thing for Wall Street is the government does absolutely nothing. A healthcare bill like Obama seeks would destroy Wall Street, but with it looking less and less likely, investors are creeping back in.

Meanwhile, nothing changes on Main Street, and it won't. Some bargain hunting will boost numbers a bit (when you've already hit bottom, it's hard not to get a positive jump from minimal spending).

Investors are trying to get in on the cheap now to reap later. If Congress jumps Republican in 2010, which will castrate Obama, the market will go bonkers. Better get your money in now.

The saddest thing is that the people getting hurt the most currently are Obama voters, many of whom don't understand this. And if he gets his tax-the-rich agenda through, more and more people are going to lose their jobs.
 
Last edited:
Well it does.

Without government there would be anarchy and in anarchy there would be no private industry.
Anarchy is by definition, No government.
Without government, ONLY private industry would exist.

On top of that government provides a structure to society that make it possible for private industry to start and work and flourish depending on the involvement level of government.
Government makes it EASIER for private industries to start and work and flourish but is by no means required for those things.

If you seriously think that private industry would work better if there was no government, then you are frankly seriously misguided.
With this I agree, but the government's role should be a minimal one and not the micro management of private people and industry that it is now.
 
Well it does.

Without government there would be anarchy and in anarchy there would be no private industry.

On top of that government provides a structure to society that make it possible for private industry to start and work and flourish depending on the involvement level of government.

If you seriously think that private industry would work better if there was no government, then you are frankly seriously misguided.

No, it doesn't!

Government can't create an economy, it can't support the economy, it can't create wealth.

Why do Libbos keep insisting that this is true??
 
No, it doesn't!

Government can't create an economy, it can't support the economy, it can't create wealth.

Why do Libbos keep insisting that this is true??

China and Russia have LOTS of government. The people live in cracker jack boxes and barely get by.
 
China and Russia have LOTS of government. The people live in cracker jack boxes and barely get by.

Thank you for illustrating my point.
 
Back
Top Bottom