Biden, "Obama Administration misread the economy"
Attorney · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2008 · 4k+ posts · 1k+ votes
Apparently the teleprompter didn't make the facts and figures clear enough.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/politics/49982712.html
Thank god they figured out they were wrong after throwing 800 billion dollars at it; at least now they are closer for throwing the next 800 billion dollars. :roll:
How's that Keynesian approach working out?
Should I sit this one out and be quiet? No, its just not possible. The reason he misread it is because he was idiot enough to start pushing for higher taxes on big business and industry who were already losing money and expect them to hire instead of lay off workers. Did you see where Microsoft wrote a letter stating they would move some of their business out of the U.S. if he expected them to be one of the major donors for this mad spending spree? I suspect they are not the only ones that will take that voyage. And of the ones who are left, I'm sure they are bracing themselves for a decrease in profit margins and hiring is the last thing on their minds.
"Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the House’s top- ranking Republican, said his party will be proven right in predictions that the stimulus legislation grew government and padded the federal deficit without creating jobs."
Well it didn't exactly take a genius to see this, now did it?
Yes...In IRAQ...
Yep, I mistyped saying Iran, instead of Iraq, but the point still remains the same. Iraq was only one of the "Axis of evil" that we were going to war against, and that destruction of their ability to assist the terrorists was destroyed, and therefore won and over. But that says nothing about the stability of the area to prevent those same terrorists from again gaining control. Which is why there have been so many casulities since the declaration. The US really is the only country that has assisted defeated countries with rebuilding instead of taking them over as occupied lands and imposing their own rules on the people. This is to the US credit and shows that there were no ulterior motives in the war effort, such as been the case with most countries war efforts.
Hmmm...
Reagan tripled the deficit in the first three years he was in office.
The second Bush administration INHERITED A SURPLUS of $230B (Clinton was apparently the only one to realize that negative numbers were bad), and then turned that into a deficit of $400B!
For your review:
If Reagan or W had inherited the worst recession in 80 years, you might be able to make an argument for what they did to the economy, but neither of them did.
I'm not supporting Obama's spending stupid amounts of money (I was one of those people who argued it wouldn't impact the recession at all), but if they succeed in a relatively quick economic recovery (before the end of next year), I'll be the first to admit I was wrong...
Others here don't seem to like to do that...
Then why keep coming back? What most people forget is that when Clinton touted his so-called surplus he forgot to add in the social security deficit. Oopsie...common rookie mistake, and you hate to see a president do it. As far as the whole "misssion accomplished" thing, that particular mission had been accomplished. He never said the whole war was over. How could it be? They weren't all concentrated in one place. We weren't fighting against a country man. We're fighting an ideology, that as one of its main tenants calls for our destruction. Look up the last imam. It calls for world destruction so that the world will be made pure and there will be the Islamic equivelant of paradise on earth. At least that's what these looney tunes believe. What quicker way to bring that about than to threaten the greatest power this world has ever known? The ruler of Iran actually said that. If you don't keep up on this stuff, then you're doing nothing more than spewing dangerous propaganda. I'm all for speaking the truth, but you really do have to keep up and take it all into account. I know it's fashionable now, and politically expediant to bash Bush and say what a great job Obama is doing, but it's also drivel if every single thing is not taken into account. imo
Not defending the statement, just putting the statement into the context (something that alot of people dont seem to understand) from which it was said.
Glad to see that you can no longer argue with the facts around which the war began and is continuing. I just wish we would put the full efforts (like we did in Iraq) into those other countries (who do not assist us diplomatically) where there are still bases of operations from which they freely operate.
Instead of imposing restrictions upon the American citizens to "insure their safety" we should ensure their safety by taking out the basis of operations so that we can live freely without restrictions.
[q]He said that all major combat operations had been completed in Iraq (years before "The Surge"), and that the U.S. and its allies had prevailed (99% of the casualties have occurred since)...
[/q]
How have the allies previaled considering there are still terrorists bombs going off in Iraq? The "major combat operations had been completed in Iraq " is correct as there is no more "major combat operations" still going on and the surge was needed to assist with the reconstruction security of that country.
Facts are still correct, statement is still correct, notice that he did not say that the war against terrorsim is over.
factcheck.org?? Then I might as well send you to:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
http://www.hannity.com/
http://www.lauraingraham.com/
Factcheck defends ACORN, Pelosi, Barney Frank, Harry Reid, etc....
You want some REAL facts regarding the National Deficit? Here they are:
Our first National Deficit reached $75M after the Revolutionary War. In 1836, President Andrew Jackson got it down to $33,513.05 but he got it back over $1M in 1838. The Civil War took it over $1B for the first time. World War 1 took it over $10B for the first time. World War 2 took it over $250B for the first time. President Reagan took it over $1T for the first time. Now here is the real kicker, in 1992, it was $4T and change. In the year 2000, it was $5.6T. And the left claims that President Clinton BALANCED the budget! HAH! Every year Clinton was in office, the National Debt went UP. Granted, it went up slower under him, but it NEVER balanced. In September, 2008, the National Debt was $10T, today it is nearly $12T. Most estimates put the National Debt somewhere between $16T and $20T in 2012. Congratulations Obozo, you created MORE National Debt then all the presidents before you, COMBINED.
But here is the other part of that, "How is the National Debt spent?" If $100,000 is spent on a Hummer, the Hummer factory creates jobs. The Government becomes a 'spending consumer', helping the economy. But if $100,000 is given to ACORN, the government gets NOTHING in return, the Government becomes Santa Claus. A healthy economy is based on a 'fairly equal trade - goods/service for cash.' This is based on whether the private sector or the public sector is the customer. Although there is a place for CHARITY, charity does not make for a good economic model. The government should be wise with it's money, I think that is what those on the RIGHT are most concerned about. Bailing out GM is not the same as buying vehicles from them. If GM can't turn a profit, let them fail. Another car company will rise. My grandfather shopped at Sears, my father shopped at K Mart, I shop at Wal Mart, that is the way a Free Enterprise system is suppose to work. But the looney left would have said, "NOOO, we have to SAVE SEARS!" Sorry, but not in my ideals.
Franklin Roosevelt said, "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." to which I reply, "A liberal is a man with a perfectly good brain who, however, has never learned to think for himself."
PS: My facts come from the US Treasury Department.
Well said Mike. And thanks for coming to my defense on that one jawsette. It was way too far past my bedtime for me to be digging that stuff up :) That's the problem with with these politically biased "fact" sites. If we can't even agree on what the heck really happened, we can never reach a logical concensus between the right and the left. And it's vital that we do so if we can ever come together as a country. We well have to get around to doing that someday if we're going to thrive the way that we can. A simple macro-economics class would really help to clear all of this up...
And again, no disrespect is meant J Scott. Even though we seem to disagree on this. I know it's a heated discussion, and thank God we still live in a place (for the time being) where we can have it, you know? I just really want us to be able to get to a place where we can debate what actually happened, not reality itself. This is not a quantum physics thread. It's a political thread.
Government refuses to accept TARP money repayment -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
"Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now."
Interesting topic:
It is important to be historically fair in that neither of our very limited two parties did very much to get a handle on financial "bubbles."
Frankly, if it's so surprising why does it continue to occur every few decades?
To some degree, no one has yet spoken about personal responsibiity - only blaming those who have a responsibility which none on this blog can imagine.
We are each, to a degree, culpible in romantiscizing "the way it was" because this was built solely on nonexistant capital - easy credit.
Our economy will actually contract to a greater degree if those who aren't responsible cease using credit. It's a negative result of doing the ethical thing.
The two are not always parallel. When we are talking the electorate, especially in our country, many seem to want services, programs and the like without payiing higher taxes. If a higher public revenue stream can safeguard the loss of historical programs and ensure we begin to address some urgent infrastructure needs I would fully support such a measure.
Businesses that cannot survive without attracting a buyer should "die." It's a little something we call capitalism.
To an extent are correct (about personal responsibility), but to say that this is built on non existant capital is bunk. The person may not have the capital, but the capital was there to be lent, it just did not belong to that person.
When those that do have the capital and are willing to lend it, lose their capital due to the loose lending, they should fail. When they do not even get their original capital back (enough times) then their lending must curtail because they no longer have that capital to lend. When they fail because of this they should be allowed to fail (capitalism).
The only true non-existant capital is that capital which can be printed (government). But that is a different discussion. Related, but different.