Political Discussion thread

cut all foreign aid, we should stop all outgoing money period.

it doesnt prevent war, we aided osama with moneyh and guns with russia and then he used it against us later.
we need stop sending money to countries , stop the spending here as well, but first foreign aid.
usa first, middle east last.

vote for ran paul in 2016, thats his motto.

if there are elections in 16

This is a cautionary tale for us not to get too emotionally caught up about the election outcome.

Im over it

before the election expression runs rampant

now, I did the only thing I could do and thats vote

now theres nothing left to do but fashion my own life around whatever destruction this guy is going to bring , complaining time is over

now theres nothing left to do but fashion my own life around whatever destruction this guy is going to bring , Originally Posted by JONBALLS

Not sure what sort of destruction you have in mind.

A terrorist attack where 3000 people are killed? Perhaps starting a 10 year multi trillion dollar war for reasons that didn't exist? How about appointing a horse attorney to run FEMA and having 1500 people die in a hurricane? Or maybe a total fiscal collapse at the end of his second term that causes us to lose over 6 million jobs in 12 months time?

Maybe you can clue us in.

I hear a lot of the same... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame bush bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame bush bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame bush bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

maybe we should try some bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame oblama bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.

you know, we could go even further back in time and bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame clinton bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla or bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame HW bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla or bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame reagan bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla or bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla blame carter.

Where does it end?

Where does it end? Originally Posted by GP

my question would be

Where does it begin?

we all gave the colledge proffessor a four year head start where he aparently is accountable for nothing..

be that as it may,

I will start calling the state of America

Obama's baby starting the first day of his second term..

fair enough?

maybe we should try some Originally Posted by GP

All i did was point out what a disastrous Presidency actually looks like, because it sure as shit doesn't look anything like what happened during Obama's term.

Apparently you don't like being reminded of it.

All i did was point out what a disastrous Presidency actually looks like, because it sure as shit doesn't look anything like what happened during Obama's term.

Apparently you don't like being reminded of it. Originally Posted by Doove

I don't know why such a valuable and insightful poster such as yourself wastes your time responding to these yahoos.
Republicans have never accepted responsibility for their MAJOR role in bringing down the economy. For some reason they still believe that tax cuts stimulate economic growth even though the empirical evidence refutes their position. The congressional think tank that congress uses came out with a report a couple month ago stating that tax cuts don't stimulate economic growth and the republican cried and tried to squelch it. Reagan had twelve tax hikes and clinton raised them as well and the economy still grew.
One of the reasons Obama's numbers look so bad, is because he took office right in the middle of the economic collapse. As I asked before ,What did Obama do to cause the loss of 2 million jobs from feb 2009 to june of 2009? Watching Juan Williams on fox news on election night, he said that exit polling showed that 50% of those polled, STILL blamed bush for the economic mess we're in. Economist Robert Samuelson, hardly a liberal, gave obama a grade of A- for his handling of the economy immediately following the crash and a c+ for the balance of his first term.

A question For all our economic "experts" out there, what has been the greatest factor in economic growth since the time of reagan?

A question For all our economic "experts" out there, what has been the greatest factor in economic growth since the time of reagan?
Originally Posted by drluv1

Glad you asked. It's the American spirit and a free market society that makes this country run, expand, grow and succeed. Not brain science here. Regulations slow any free market. I know we are a society of rules and regulations that protect us citizens from harm. But a perfect example was when our government put aside several regulations to help the people in NJ and NYC. If these regulations were so necessary why did they hinder the relief effort. As JB said this is now Obama's baby. And doove the concern is that new regulations will slow growth down. With that comes layoffs and less federal revenue. I don't believe for one second that Obama wants to destroy this country. Elections have consequences but so do policies. If you can convince me that raising rates on those earning over $250,000 and bringing in what they estimate will be 800 billion over 10 years or 80 billion per year will hire any of the 23 million unemployed, I will be your genie and buy you an hour with your dream girl. To take the deficit from 1.4 trillion to 1.32 trillion may be a start but is peanuts compared to the real problem. I have noticed whenever Obama talks and he has his pen ready to sign the bill right away, he never once mentions any type of cuts he wants to propose. It's just another tax and spend administration. If I were an elected official I would demand to know what his cuts were before I agreed to any tax increase or even discuss an increase. Lets go back to that debate where they asked about a 10 to 1 cut to tax ratio. 800 billion cut to an 80 billion tax increase. Ready Liberals............ Show your cards.

Glad you asked. It's the American spirit and a free market society that makes this country run, expand, grow and succeed. Not brain science here. Regulations slow any free market. I know we are a society of rules and regulations that protect us citizens from harm. But a perfect example was when our government put aside several regulations to help the people in NJ and NYC. If these regulations were so necessary why did they hinder the relief effort. As JB said this is now Obama's baby. And doove the concern is that new regulations will slow growth down. With that comes layoffs and less federal revenue. I don't believe for one second that Obama wants to destroy this country. Elections have consequences but so do policies. If you can convince me that raising rates on those earning over $250,000 and bringing in what they estimate will be 800 billion over 10 years or 80 billion per year will hire any of the 23 million unemployed, I will be your genie and buy you an hour with your dream girl. To take the deficit from 1.4 trillion to 1.32 trillion may be a start but is peanuts compared to the real problem. I have noticed whenever Obama talks and he has his pen ready to sign the bill right away, he never once mentions any type of cuts he wants to propose. It's just another tax and spend administration. If I were an elected official I would demand to know what his cuts were before I agreed to any tax increase or even discuss an increase. Lets go back to that debate where they asked about a 10 to 1 cut to tax ratio. 800 billion cut to an 80 billion tax increase. Ready Liberals............ Show your cards. Originally Posted by montana1958

Nice try! where is this free market you speak of? Once you have taxes and regulation there is no free market, that's economics 101. Temporarily easing regulations is simply the cost of easing regulations is outweighed by the benefits accrued by easing those regulations, IN A TIME OF CRISIS.. That doesn't that those regulations aren't important or valuable in normal times.
Nobody is saying that increasing the tax rate on high wage earners is going to solve all our problems but it's a decent start. Perhaps you'd like college students and the elderly to pay down the debt, as you espoused before. Obama offered a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases and the republicans refused, so you assertion that obama would sign anything is blatantly wrong. Maybe you have him confused with bush.
You may not believe it, but the economy has steadily improved since Obama took over and an improving economy will go a long way to reducing the deficit. Thankfully Romney didn't win or else we would have another tax cut and spend outrageously administration.
Any of our other economic "experts" out there want to tell us what has been the greatest factor in economic growth since the time of reagan?

Nice try! where is this free market you speak of? Once you have taxes and regulation there is no free market, that's economics 101. Temporarily easing regulations is simply the cost of easing regulations is outweighed by the benefits accrued by easing those regulations, IN A TIME OF CRISIS.. That doesn't that those regulations aren't important or valuable in normal times.
Nobody is saying that increasing the tax rate on high wage earners is going to solve all our problems but it's a decent start. Perhaps you'd like college students and the elderly to pay down the debt, as you espoused before. Obama offered a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases and the republicans refused, so you assertion that obama would sign anything is blatantly wrong. Maybe you have him confused with bush.
You may not believe it, but the economy has steadily improved since Obama took over and an improving economy will go a long way to reducing the deficit. Thankfully Romney didn't win or else we would have another tax cut and spend outrageously administration.
Any of our other economic "experts" out there want to tell us what has been the greatest factor in economic growth since the time of reagan? Originally Posted by drluv1

First of all, I like Doove’s cogent reminder of what disaster in the White House really looks like.

What new regulations by Obama are we actually talking about? “Unshackle Upstate” - love the image – talks about this issue all the time, but the best they’ve been able to do lately is moan about Thruway tolls for unsafe tandem rigs driven by inexperienced drivers, and how raising the minimum wage will quash job creation – in the McDonald’s sector, as far as I can tell.

Waiving regulations, as in the Hurricane Sandy situation, which by the way, flooded out my son and his family, requires discernment, something that Tea Baggers and Grover Norquist acolytes do not possess. I am grateful that Governor Christie does seem to have discernment on some issues, but many conservative pols have laid Romney’s defeat at his doorstep. Go figure.

I’ll give Reagan credit for knowing how to work with Congress. He made a successful case that the wealthiest among us should pay a little more. I hate to pull the race card, gents, but it helped that he was white. Just ask that fine Southern Baptist Mitch McConnell, beholden to the whiskey and tobacco interests of his state, about that one.

Nice try! where is this free market you speak of? Once you have taxes and regulation there is no free market, that's economics 101.




Temporarily easing regulations is simply the cost of easing regulations is outweighed by the benefits accrued by easing those regulations, IN A TIME OF CRISIS.. That doesn't that those regulations aren't important or valuable in normal times.




Nobody is saying that increasing the tax rate on high wage earners is going to solve all our problems but it's a decent start. Perhaps you'd like college students and the elderly to pay down the debt, as you espoused before.




Obama offered a 3 to 1 spending cuts to tax increases and the republicans refused, so you assertion that obama would sign anything is blatantly wrong. Maybe you have him confused with bush.




Originally Posted by drluv1

In the marketplace, the price of a good or service helps communicate consumer demand to producers and thus directs the allocation of resources toward satisfaction of consumers as well as investors. In a free market, the system of prices is the emergent result of a vast number of voluntary transactions, rather than of political decrees as in a controlled market. The freer the market, the more prices will reflect consumer habits and demands, and the more valuable the information in these prices are to all players in the economy. Through free competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase


Obama wants a controlled market society for our country with government calling the shots. When our banks will spend 35 billion this year due to the new Dodd/Frank regulations don't complain to me if it costs you more.There are regulations I can see that protect us but when govt forced banks to lower a standard to give mortgages to people who will never pay them back. Not a good change. Or eliminating a work requirement in the welfare system so they never need to work again.



As for temporary easing of regulations, it shows how red tape can impact our society. This was a crisis I know but what about if day to day these regulations didn't exist. On one hand thay say these are necesarry regulations but on the other hand they are admitting they hurt our society and slow down or inconvience our lives.It can't be both ways.



Raising taxes on the rich is a decent start? My contention is it's peanuts. But when the top 2% pay 70% of the income tax in this land, what percentage is fair to you?




Obama's 3 to 1 or 4 trillion spending cuts were outer year baseline cuts that have no impact on reality. All theory budget spending cuts. Give me a one year spending cut that happens this year. If Obama wants 80 billion in extra revenue this year show me the 400 billion spending cuts he is proposing. We are projected to have 12 trillion new debt in 10 years. So with all these great plans our national debt will still be 25 trillion in 10 years. This is after all these so called grand bargain cuts. The taxes come in immediately while the cuts never happen. The spending cuts are annual cuts and could be voyed back in next budget while the tax rates are permanent. We have seen this played out many times in the past. Lets not fall for it again.

In the marketplace, the price of a good or service helps communicate consumer demand to producers and thus directs the allocation of resources toward satisfaction of consumers as well as investors. In a free market, the system of prices is the emergent result of a vast number of voluntary transactions, rather than of political decrees as in a controlled market. The freer the market, the more prices will reflect consumer habits and demands, and the more valuable the information in these prices are to all players in the economy. Through free competition between vendors for the provision of products and services, prices tend to decrease, and quality tends to increase


Obama wants a controlled market society for our country with government calling the shots. When our banks will spend 35 billion this year due to the new Dodd/Frank regulations don't complain to me if it costs you more.There are regulations I can see that protect us but when govt forced banks to lower a standard to give mortgages to people who will never pay them back. Not a good change. Or eliminating a work requirement in the welfare system so they never need to work again.



As for temporary easing of regulations, it shows how red tape can impact our society. This was a crisis I know but what about if day to day these regulations didn't exist. On one hand thay say these are necesarry regulations but on the other hand they are admitting they hurt our society and slow down or inconvience our lives.It can't be both ways.



Raising taxes on the rich is a decent start? My contention is it's peanuts. But when the top 2% pay 70% of the income tax in this land, what percentage is fair to you?




Obama's 3 to 1 or 4 trillion spending cuts were outer year baseline cuts that have no impact on reality. All theory budget spending cuts. Give me a one year spending cut that happens this year. If Obama wants 80 billion in extra revenue this year show me the 400 billion spending cuts he is proposing. We are projected to have 12 trillion new debt in 10 years. So with all these great plans our national debt will still be 25 trillion in 10 years. This is after all these so called grand bargain cuts. The taxes come in immediately while the cuts never happen. The spending cuts are annual cuts and could be voyed back in next budget while the tax rates are permanent. We have seen this played out many times in the past. Lets not fall for it again. Originally Posted by montana1958

The first part of your treatise on market forces ignores a couple harsh realities. First, it assumes consumers are educated. Having worked a salesman in a few high ticket categories, I would tell you the vast majority of consumers are poorly educated, though they think otherwise.Secondly, an unregulated market has proven time and time again to lead to Boom and bust cycles with the taxpayer holding the bag. The repeal of the glass-steagall act is the most recent example of this, but the savings and loan scandal in the 80's was largely the result of lax regulation.
Home ownership is something Americans consider almost universally as a good thing. A government program to help low income people achieve the goal of home ownership is a laudible idea. How many of the WWII generation wouldn't have been able to buy a home, or go to college, without government help( loans). What wasn't an intention of the repeal- of the glass steagall act was for financial institution to create instruments so complex that no one knew who owned and was owed what. Consumers expecting 10 to 20% appreciation in the value of their homes while putting nothing down certainly made the situation worse. The collusion between the lending and appraisal industry alone had more of a negative effect on the housing market than the loans made to low income people.
As mark twain said" there's three kind of lies.... lies, damn lies and statistics". It may be true that the top 2% pay 70% of the federal income taxes( I thought it was 50%), but when you consider ALL taxes, the top 2% make about 20% of the income and pay about 20% of the taxes. Seems pretty fair to me. Do you think it's fair we tax work at a higher rate than investment?
If a better deal isn't reached, the expiration of bush tax cuts will bring in about $500 billion in new tax revenue and the agreed to spending cuts would be $130 billion. This would cut the deficit in half without considering the benefits of an improving economy. The tax rates would be back to the clinton era, When we ran a surplus. Seems like a pretty good Idea to me, what do you think?