To All The Liberals

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Another good point...about the Depression.

We're in a severe recession. Unemployment is sky high. A few years ago, home ownership was at an all-time HIGH, now it's at an all-time LOW. Inflation is coming next year. Energy costs are rising. The "Healthcare" bill is costing people more money RIGHT NOW and giving no benefits. They're raising taxes dramatically in 2 months DURING A DEEP RECESSION. (tax rate hikes for everyone, reduction of child credits, re-reinstatement of inheritance/death tax, lower standard deduction, etc...all from expiring Bush tax cuts they refuse to extend). Then, the President wants to pass Cap-and-Trade, meaning higher energy costs on top of the current rate increases, plus higher food/product/service costs and less jobs...


Most of working America has realized that if we don't stop this President's agenda NOW, we'll be in a real Depression. Yes, the economy was struggling when he came into office, but he's done the exact OPPOSITE of everything that needs to be done. More spending AND higher taxes...taking over companies/banks, trying to detroy free markets, especially in healthcare/insurance fields, discouraging employers to hire more...it almost looks intentional.

Buster, with all due respect homie, this isn't lining up with the economic data that we're seeing and have seen over the past twelve months. This is the fastest post recession recovery we've seen in a generation or better. How we go from here back to a Depression is beyond me. The auto companies have returned to viability, TARP has been repaid with interest and at a profit to the taxpayer. You know that, right? You can't cut corners when you inherit such an economy as Obama did. You have to spend and cut taxes. You know he's done that too, right?

What's troubling coming from, what I believe to be, reasonable people like yourself, GMScud (hell, I'll throw in Firstdown) and others is had we elected John McCain, the size of his stimulus program would have been very comparable in scope to Obama's. Definitely scaled down some, but he would have had to do something nonetheless. The bank bailouts weren't even optional, so I wont' go there.

I'm not economic prognosticator, but let's see how things play out over the next 12-24 months. I think the economy will be better off and not worse.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

Sure seems like it to me....Boxer and JERRY BROWN? He's already failed once!




I have to ask...what were you New Yorkers thinking, reelecting Schumer (tax deadbeat, well-known criminal) again? I noticed Long Island went Republican, so I have to assume NYC did this...living in their own world.

Chuck is no saint but he's very popular, he's high profile and does a lot of good work at the local level, and his opponent frankly was a joke.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't smoke but I would like to see it get over turned on a federal level.

Why? I thought you were a less gov't guy? I'd rather the states be left top decide on their own what their residents can and can't do.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. Sources said indeed. I am curious, do you guys really lack the necessary analytical skills to see how absurd this claim is? Has it also occurred to you that it is incumbent upon the host nation to pay for most of the security costs?

You guys are amazing.

Glad to see you're loving life up there in that cloud. No worries, no reality.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Chuck is no saint but he's very popular, he's high profile and does a lot of good work at the local level, and his opponent frankly was a joke.

W.A.M. I get it.

Must be the same thing for Barney Frank, who is one of the major reasons for the housing crisis and this whole economic crash....but he brings home the bacon I guess.

[MTK]

wam?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Why? I thought you were a less gov't guy? I'd rather the states be left top decide on their own what their residents can and can't do.

First the federal goverment has to remove their law making it illegal then the states can decide if they want to make it legal or illegal.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

wam?

Walking Around Money

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Glad to see you're loving life up there in that cloud. No worries, no reality.

It's breezy here on cloud one, how is it up there on your cloud? Can you see heaven from there?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Buster, with all due respect homie, this isn't lining up with the economic data that we're seeing and have seen over the past twelve months. This is the fastest post recession recovery we've seen in a generation or better. How we go from here back to a Depression is beyond me. The auto companies have returned to viability, TARP has been repaid with interest and at a profit to the taxpayer. You know that, right? You can't cut corners when you inherit such an economy as Obama did. You have to spend and cut taxes. You know he's done that too, right?

What's troubling coming from, what I believe to be, reasonable people like yourself, GMScud (hell, I'll throw in Firstdown) and others is had we elected John McCain, the size of his stimulus program would have been very comparable in scope to Obama's. Definitely scaled down some, but he would have had to do something nonetheless. The bank bailouts weren't even optional, so I wont' go there.

I'm not economic prognosticator, but let's see how things play out over the next 12-24 months. I think the economy will be better off and not worse.

You must get all your news about Obama from his web site. Not all the tarp money has been paid back.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You must get all your news about Obama from his web site. Not all the tarp money has been paid back.

Haha...no, I actually don't visit Obama's website. Does he even have one? Or are you referring to the White House website.

Anyway, the part that has to do with banks has been largely paid back. Has every cent of it, no so you got me there.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Haha...no, I actually don't visit Obama's website. Does he even have one? Or are you referring to the White House website.

Anyway, the part that has to do with banks has been largely paid back. Has every cent of it, no so you got me there.

Not sure how much of the money has been paid back but thats not really why I don't like Obama. For me it goes back to the Dems think goverment is the solution to all problems and I think goverment is to big and causes too many problems. I don't view yesterday as any type of victory until I see a change to reduce goverment. I would actually like to see both parties run out of DC and a fresh new start but I don't think that will happen.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure how much of the money has been paid back but thats not really why I don't like Obama. For me it goes back to the Dems think goverment is the solution to all problems and I think goverment is to big and causes too many problems. I don't view yesterday as any type of victory until I see a change to reduce goverment. I would actually like to see both parties run out of DC and a fresh new start but I don't think that will happen.

this.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

I believe The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. Sources said indeed. I am curious, do you guys really lack the necessary analytical skills to see how absurd this claim is? Has it also occurred to you that it is incumbent upon the host nation to pay for most of the security costs?

You guys are amazing.

New Dehli TV reports the same thing.

In light of the security situation in the region, might have been smarter to have a smaller contingent (leave Michelle at home) or have the folks from Mumbai come here where we've got far more control. India is a critical ally, but $200M a day ain't chump change.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure how much of the money has been paid back but thats not really why I don't like Obama. For me it goes back to the Dems think goverment is the solution to all problems and I think goverment is to big and causes too many problems. I don't view yesterday as any type of victory until I see a change to reduce goverment. I would actually like to see both parties run out of DC and a fresh new start but I don't think that will happen.

Well I can tell you that Obama doesn't think government is the solution to all problems. In fact, I don't think he believes that government is the solution to most of our problems. But that's neither here nor there as I'm sure you'll believe otherwise even if the man was standing right in front of you saying it in six different languages.

What he believes (why do I feel like I'm constantly defending Obama when all I'm really trying to do is clarify and debunk myths) is that government needs to expand in some areas and needs to be reduced [drastically] in some areas. It's not an either or proposition, I think it's this and that. We can't just slice government to the bone to satisfy our ideology and political point of view.

The quality of life of the average American would be impacted in a negative way if we had less firemen, fewer police officers to keep our streets safe. What if we didn't regulate and properly inspect our meats, produce, and dairy products, as well as over the counter drugs that make us well and reduce visits to the doctor's office? How about if we suddenly did away with the EPA, an agency started by Richard Nixon, how do we then implement environmental laws and safety standards that big business must comply with? How can we have a safe enviornment in which in our children and ederly citizens live, breath, and lead healthy lives? I don't know about you, but I think that's the role of government. With the growing threat of terrorism everyday from every corner of the globe, should Congress reduce the size or do away with Homeland Security; The agency charged with protecting our borders and making us less vulnerable to terrorists threats? I'm not making an argument for big government, I'd just like to know what people mean when they say 'reduce' the size of government. Again, what's the prescribe policy to achieve this?

Shall we subscribe to the Rand Paul and Ron Paul school of thought, where they would like to abolish the Department of Education and the Federal Reserve? Or do we need more regulation to govern our equity and bond markets to ensure Joe Investor doesn't get burned by Enron, AIG, and Lehman Brothers sending a ripple effect around the world?

What's the happy medium here?