Eliminate the uncertainty of what the government is going to do and eliminate the Obama vendetta against businesses and you will see a turn around in the economy.
The constant threat of tax increases makes it very difficult to decide what sort and level of risk you are willing to take with your hard earned money.
This is something that Obama will never understand.
The fact is that Obama's goal is to bring this country down and then remake it into a third world nation.
- Guest123018-4
- 08-01-2012, 04:25 PM
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-01-2012, 04:28 PM
Blinders? That better?
- CJ7
- 08-01-2012, 06:05 PM
Eliminate the uncertainty of what the government is going to do and eliminate the Obama vendetta against businesses and you will see a turn around in the economy.
The constant threat of tax increases makes it very difficult to decide what sort and level of risk you are willing to take with your hard earned money.
This is something that Obama will never understand.
The fact is that Obama's goal is to bring this country down and then remake it into a third world nation. Originally Posted by The2Dogs
yup, every third world country makes sure their people have medical insurance. Ya gotta start the tear down somewhere ya know.
- Fast Gunn
- 08-01-2012, 06:11 PM
Let's review the facts as objectively as possible in this forum.
You know, those pesky things, you'd just as soon forget when you'd rather attack President Obama.
The over-riding fact is that the previous administration dug this country into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
As reviled as President Clinton was for his sexual proclivities, the fact remains that he left this country with a surplus.
A surplus that was quickly squandered by Bush and whose policies would be continued by any Republican in the White House with tax cuts for the rich and perhaps invasions of countries that we merely suspect of wrong doing.
President Obama has had a Herculean task of not only reversing the downward spiral this country was in, but having to face opposition at every turn, but he still managed to reverse the course this country was in.
So what alternative do we have in going with Mitt Romney? What qualifications has he demonstrated to lead this country?
Granted that he made tons of money heading Bain Capital, but he did that by buying ailing companies, laying people off and selling the carcass that was left. That is how private equity companies operate, but that is not how to run a government.
. . . I don't really expect to change any minds here since Texas has historically been a red state and will continue that trend, but personally, I am certain that President Obama is the best chance this country has of overcoming the huge challenges that lay ahead not only for this country, but for the entire world.
You know, those pesky things, you'd just as soon forget when you'd rather attack President Obama.
The over-riding fact is that the previous administration dug this country into the worst recession since the Great Depression.
As reviled as President Clinton was for his sexual proclivities, the fact remains that he left this country with a surplus.
A surplus that was quickly squandered by Bush and whose policies would be continued by any Republican in the White House with tax cuts for the rich and perhaps invasions of countries that we merely suspect of wrong doing.
President Obama has had a Herculean task of not only reversing the downward spiral this country was in, but having to face opposition at every turn, but he still managed to reverse the course this country was in.
So what alternative do we have in going with Mitt Romney? What qualifications has he demonstrated to lead this country?
Granted that he made tons of money heading Bain Capital, but he did that by buying ailing companies, laying people off and selling the carcass that was left. That is how private equity companies operate, but that is not how to run a government.
. . . I don't really expect to change any minds here since Texas has historically been a red state and will continue that trend, but personally, I am certain that President Obama is the best chance this country has of overcoming the huge challenges that lay ahead not only for this country, but for the entire world.
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-01-2012, 07:30 PM
We can always count on you, FastGoon.
- Fast Gunn
- 08-01-2012, 07:35 PM
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-01-2012, 08:19 PM
Fast Gunn, if you wish to "review the facts as objectively as possible", you might note that Obama (acting in concert with a complaisant congress in 2009-2010) simply continued and doubled down on the worst of G. W. Bush's economic policies.
Seems that facts are pesky things that you'd just as soon forget!
As I've noted in this forum on several occasions, the policy decisions of 2009-2010 were quite the opposite of those pursued during the mid-to-late 1990s. Comparisons between the economic policies of the Obama and Clinton administrations are simply laughable.
Consequently, it should come as a surprise to no one that the economy was robust fifteen years ago, whereas it's sick and struggling today.
Seems that facts are pesky things that you'd just as soon forget!
As I've noted in this forum on several occasions, the policy decisions of 2009-2010 were quite the opposite of those pursued during the mid-to-late 1990s. Comparisons between the economic policies of the Obama and Clinton administrations are simply laughable.
Consequently, it should come as a surprise to no one that the economy was robust fifteen years ago, whereas it's sick and struggling today.
- cptjohnstone
- 08-01-2012, 08:56 PM
Fast Gunn, if you wish to "review the facts as objectively as possible", you might note that Obama (acting in concert with a complaisant congress in 2009-2010) simply continued and doubled down on the worst of G. W. Bush's economic policies.sounds just like bho tv ads, BLAME BUSH
Seems that facts are pesky things that you'd just as soon forget!
As I've noted in this forum on several occasions, the policy decisions of 2009-2010 were quite the opposite of those pursued during the mid-to-late 1990s. Comparisons between the economic policies of the Obama and Clinton administrations are simply laughable.
Consequently, it should come as a surprise to no one that the economy was robust fifteen years ago, whereas it's sick and struggling today. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
- Fast Gunn
- 08-01-2012, 09:17 PM
Very well, let's start on the facts that we can both agree.
The entire world is now going through serious economic convulsions.
When the last Democratic President left office, he left the country with a surplus.
When the last Republican President left office, he left the country in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
President Obama took office when the economy was in a downward death spiral. Detroit was about to go bankrupt. The housing market cratered and people were losing their homes left and right when this started in December of 2007.
What does a President do when he enters into office with the economic world collapsing around him?
Does he tighten credit like Hoover did in 1930 believing that was what the country needed?
No, hell no! That was exactly what made a bad situation even worse and began The Great Depression.
Why did the recession start, anyway?
There is still no general consensus on what caused it to start, but there were many things going wrong at the same time.
People who were not really qualified to buy homes, bought them anyway with little down thinking that the prices would only go up and they could sell them for a profit or trade up. Well, that did not happen. Home prices started to drop and the ARMs started to choke people who could barely pay as it was.
That had a ripple effect and the contagion spread outward.
Meanwhile, Detroit was going bankrupt as a result of the enormous benefits that the unions had extracted from the car manufacturers. Benefits that were not a burden to the Japanese and they could undersell Detroit and drove them to the brink of disaster.
The US government had to do something to salvage these major industries before the entire system collapsed.
Banks were failing because now they were holding too many toxic assets of mortgages from people who could not pay their escalating mortgage premiums.
Imagine the immense and sudden pressure on a young President coming into office and trying to keep the country from falling apart while the only agenda the opposition had was to weaken him when he needed the most help? Their concern was not the welfare of the country. Their concern was obtaining power in whatever way they could.
They were not even ashamed to declare it publicly!
He decided to bail out Detroit, but at the time, Mitt Romney said it was a bad idea for government to do that. He said private industry should do that, but what private industry had that kind of cash? Now that the car makers have begun to recover and started paying back the money, Mitt Romney says that it was really his idea all along!
The choices in the November election are as clear as night and day,
. . . but then to blind people it is always night!
The entire world is now going through serious economic convulsions.
When the last Democratic President left office, he left the country with a surplus.
When the last Republican President left office, he left the country in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
President Obama took office when the economy was in a downward death spiral. Detroit was about to go bankrupt. The housing market cratered and people were losing their homes left and right when this started in December of 2007.
What does a President do when he enters into office with the economic world collapsing around him?
Does he tighten credit like Hoover did in 1930 believing that was what the country needed?
No, hell no! That was exactly what made a bad situation even worse and began The Great Depression.
Why did the recession start, anyway?
There is still no general consensus on what caused it to start, but there were many things going wrong at the same time.
People who were not really qualified to buy homes, bought them anyway with little down thinking that the prices would only go up and they could sell them for a profit or trade up. Well, that did not happen. Home prices started to drop and the ARMs started to choke people who could barely pay as it was.
That had a ripple effect and the contagion spread outward.
Meanwhile, Detroit was going bankrupt as a result of the enormous benefits that the unions had extracted from the car manufacturers. Benefits that were not a burden to the Japanese and they could undersell Detroit and drove them to the brink of disaster.
The US government had to do something to salvage these major industries before the entire system collapsed.
Banks were failing because now they were holding too many toxic assets of mortgages from people who could not pay their escalating mortgage premiums.
Imagine the immense and sudden pressure on a young President coming into office and trying to keep the country from falling apart while the only agenda the opposition had was to weaken him when he needed the most help? Their concern was not the welfare of the country. Their concern was obtaining power in whatever way they could.
They were not even ashamed to declare it publicly!
He decided to bail out Detroit, but at the time, Mitt Romney said it was a bad idea for government to do that. He said private industry should do that, but what private industry had that kind of cash? Now that the car makers have begun to recover and started paying back the money, Mitt Romney says that it was really his idea all along!
The choices in the November election are as clear as night and day,
. . . but then to blind people it is always night!
- CuteOldGuy
- 08-01-2012, 09:23 PM
You're right about Detroit being held hostage by the unions. But Obama didn't save the industry, he saved the very unions that were holding the industry back. Had the industry filed Chapter 11, like any other industry, they could have made plans for success in the long term.
We'll be bailing them out again, soon.
But your wide eyed innocent worship of Obama is too cute. It's hard to get upset, even though you're full of shit.
What happened to that positive, libertarian, you can make it post you had a few days ago? That was brilliant.
We'll be bailing them out again, soon.
But your wide eyed innocent worship of Obama is too cute. It's hard to get upset, even though you're full of shit.
What happened to that positive, libertarian, you can make it post you had a few days ago? That was brilliant.
- cptjohnstone
- 08-01-2012, 09:29 PM
fast cum
If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”
If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-02-2012, 08:35 AM
Fast Gunn, just a couple of points:
Yes, the last Democratic president cooperated to set the course for a responsible fiscal path. But have you somehow failed to notice that the current Democratic president (just like his Republican predecessor) has done exactly the opposite?
We needed financial reform and a robust economic recovery and growth agenda in 2009, not a baldly political agenda centering around budget-busting political payoffs, entitlement expansions, and crony-capitalist blue sky fantasies. Nothing has been fixed. Obama has no intention of making anything remotely resembling a tough or politically difficult decision. All he's offered is a lot of talk -- he hasn't even made the slightest effort to fix any of the most critical problems we face. Anyone not blinded by partisanship can obviously see that. Just look at the fact that he completely ignored the suggestions offered by the Simpson-Bowles commission, for instance. If he didn't like some of them, he should have offered his own plan.
For their part, Republican partisans should realize that Romney is similarly unlikely to make any politically difficult decisions concerning the economy unless absolutely forced. So far, all he's offered is more of the same -- across-the-board tax cuts along with nothing at all in the way of meaningfully cutting spending. If he hopes to convince voters that his proposed plan will trim the deficit, he'd better be one helluva salesman!
Now we have a structural budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars a year. Reducing it to a level unlikely to precipitate fiscal crises will involve some very impolitic decisions. A lot of toes are going to have to be stepped on.
Pandering politicians such as Obama and Romney will just continue to do what they always do -- so until the next crisis, I believe that we'll just see more of the same.
Yes, the last Democratic president cooperated to set the course for a responsible fiscal path. But have you somehow failed to notice that the current Democratic president (just like his Republican predecessor) has done exactly the opposite?
We needed financial reform and a robust economic recovery and growth agenda in 2009, not a baldly political agenda centering around budget-busting political payoffs, entitlement expansions, and crony-capitalist blue sky fantasies. Nothing has been fixed. Obama has no intention of making anything remotely resembling a tough or politically difficult decision. All he's offered is a lot of talk -- he hasn't even made the slightest effort to fix any of the most critical problems we face. Anyone not blinded by partisanship can obviously see that. Just look at the fact that he completely ignored the suggestions offered by the Simpson-Bowles commission, for instance. If he didn't like some of them, he should have offered his own plan.
For their part, Republican partisans should realize that Romney is similarly unlikely to make any politically difficult decisions concerning the economy unless absolutely forced. So far, all he's offered is more of the same -- across-the-board tax cuts along with nothing at all in the way of meaningfully cutting spending. If he hopes to convince voters that his proposed plan will trim the deficit, he'd better be one helluva salesman!
Now we have a structural budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars a year. Reducing it to a level unlikely to precipitate fiscal crises will involve some very impolitic decisions. A lot of toes are going to have to be stepped on.
Pandering politicians such as Obama and Romney will just continue to do what they always do -- so until the next crisis, I believe that we'll just see more of the same.
- Whirlaway
- 08-02-2012, 08:54 AM
From Today's WSJ, sounds pretty doable to me...........
The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:
• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.
• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.
• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.
For more detailed read of the WSJ article go here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...656362660.html
The Romney economic plan would fundamentally change the direction of policy to increase GDP and job creation now and going forward. The governor's plan puts growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:
• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.
• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.
• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.
For more detailed read of the WSJ article go here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...656362660.html
- Texas Contrarian
- 08-02-2012, 01:54 PM
Whirlaway, I am very skeptical of Romney, since I believe that nothing he's said or done so far suggests to me that he's anything other than just another pandering politician.
However...
If he turns out to be serious about a real, robust reform agenda, I'm all for it.
The linked article says that he proposes a plan to reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP to about 20% over the next four years. Great, but that's going to involve a lot of tough and impolitic choices. It's a whole lot easier said than done. As I noted in my last post, a whole lot of toes would have to be stepped on.
The article also notes that he wants to reform the tax code, including reducing income tax rates by 20% across-the-board. That would be attacked as a big giveaway to the "rich", since it would lower the top-bracket rate to 28%. However, real reform that simplifies the code and strips away exclusions and loopholes while keeping rates moderate is the way to go. Economists of virtually every political persuasion agree with that sentiment. For instance, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission offered tax proposals along those lines.
Many on both sides of the aisle also agree that we need corporate tax reform that lowers the statutory rate and broadens the base.
The rest of the article also offers myriad proposals which would represent a big improvement over the status quo. (Of course, I suppose it would be difficult to find ideas that didn't improve over the "plans" of the completely unserious Barack Obama.)
However...
If he turns out to be serious about a real, robust reform agenda, I'm all for it.
The linked article says that he proposes a plan to reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP to about 20% over the next four years. Great, but that's going to involve a lot of tough and impolitic choices. It's a whole lot easier said than done. As I noted in my last post, a whole lot of toes would have to be stepped on.
The article also notes that he wants to reform the tax code, including reducing income tax rates by 20% across-the-board. That would be attacked as a big giveaway to the "rich", since it would lower the top-bracket rate to 28%. However, real reform that simplifies the code and strips away exclusions and loopholes while keeping rates moderate is the way to go. Economists of virtually every political persuasion agree with that sentiment. For instance, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission offered tax proposals along those lines.
Many on both sides of the aisle also agree that we need corporate tax reform that lowers the statutory rate and broadens the base.
The rest of the article also offers myriad proposals which would represent a big improvement over the status quo. (Of course, I suppose it would be difficult to find ideas that didn't improve over the "plans" of the completely unserious Barack Obama.)
- Randy4Candy
- 08-02-2012, 08:22 PM
Sure do, dumb fuck OP. We really need to go back and do MORE of what caused this situation, don't we?