«Home

Cash For What?. . .

Can the Obamamaniacs please shed light on this. I would love to hear from those who have fought valiantly in support of President Obama's stimulus plan. Please enlighten me on why your cousin in the White House is doing this?

CASH FOR CLUNKERS. . .

But first, did anyone see Geithner on abc's This Week? Does the guy suffer from autism or something? He sounded like whining Palin. . , .no sorry, Palin has more testosterone than this guy.

Anyway, why should my tax money subsidize a car purchase that I am not driving?

Avatar
Newbie
214 answers

This is what happens when you just ingest talking points from the dronic Left. It is part of the lies you guys just propagate.  How many Economists did you poll to make such a bold and very misleading statement?

I meant economists who were in rhetorical audience. It was in bold characters in  my previous post. Not every economist's opinion mattered when stimulus debate was going on. My point is this, why aren't you telling us what right wing economists  saw in the economy that  made them come up with the idea of having  a stimulus? Who proposed to Pres. Bush the idea of having a stimulus? Why did Bush authorize  some stimuli before Obama came in?

Apart from the CBO that declared that the stimulus will do more harm than good, here's some information for you to digest.

Cherry picking CBO's endorsement.  Was in favor of a stimulus, but no need to use it as bench mark.

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Any historical precedent in US to show that in  deep recession  Govt should not do anything?

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor who was chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economics Advisors, is a self-described stimulus skeptic; he recently pointed out the Democratic Congress' own budget office says that only 8 percent of the proposed "stimulus" spending will take place in the 2009 fiscal year

Where was this fellow when his boss was mortgaging American future in order to fight the war in Iraq? Where was he when Bush signed  into  law economic stimuli?

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. Where was this CATO institute when the economy was tanking? What did they think was the alternative solution?

2. Greg Mankiw says only 8% of the stimulus spending will take place in 2009, well SO DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION! Infact they told us unemployment would still go up and the recession would not end until 2010.

If 8% stimulus has slowed the recession this much, imagine what would happen when we spend 28%.

It is these same astro turf fools claiming to "protest" now who will be the beneficiaries of a much more robust economy in the next few yrs, trust the racists to deny Obama the credit anyway.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@adconline,

Apart from the CBO that declared that the stimulus willdo more harm than good, here's some information for you to digest.

The Cato Institute, a non-partisan think tank that takes broadly free-market views, was frustrated enough by the conventional wisdom in Washington that it took out a full-page ad on page 11 of the New York Times on Wednesday. The ad, which will also appear in Roll Call magazine and Thursday's Washington Post, is signed by scores of economists and says "we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance."

Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economics professor who was chairman of George W. Bush's Council of Economics Advisors, is a self-described stimulus skeptic; he recently pointed out the Democratic Congress' own budget office says that only 8 percent of the proposed "stimulus" spending will take place in the 2009 fiscal year. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/28/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4759532.shtml

Stop reproducing Washington's talking points here as facts.

0
Avatar
Newbie

tayo.

You were  not in support agreed, but those who u were in the rhetorical audience said that the best way to go was by having a large stimulus. It was a near consensus amongst economists on the left and right. Those at the corridor of power,influence  and knowledge in your party agreed that stimulus was the way to go.

On the other hand, a comparison is based on two or more  known conditions. Dont give me a hypothetical scenario, but a real situation in US history where a govt bailout or intervention wasn't not needed or implemented in a steep recession like this  and the economy pulled out on its own. If not, why did u think that Obama would do “undoables” to save the economy? Why is it that Bernanke a Bush appointee and scholar of great depression opened Fed's lending window to banks and some other companies. Mind you that federal reserve has an independent authority to set monetary/economic policies

0
Avatar
Newbie

@adcolie,

I was never in support of the bailout by Bush then and still not in support of the one by Obama. Stop generalising when you have no grasp of the facts.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@David,

My point is very simple. We have tried this kind of program before in the real estate side and it almost brought down the economy. What makes anyone think that this same principle will lead to success eventually. Now this is something that happens to someone that I know first hand. Who knows the experiences of others we know nothing about?

There are a lot of unintended negative consequences to every attempt by the govt to manipulate markets. Subsidizing farmers here in the US causes starvation in Africa, mandating ethanol in vehicles increases the price of corn globally. The Community Reinvestment Act may have spurred home ownership initially, but it led to massive foreclosures down the line. Even the cash for Clunker Program is not without its unintended consequences - from repos of vehicles (just like foreclosures), to keeping Mechanic shops less busy and increasing the cost of spare parts of those vehicles to the massive interests and debt that the govt will have to pay back.

So you see, it is not about Obama, but Govt interventions and mandates that have never had a history of success, whether under Republicans or Democrats.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Tayo.

U are not the standard and your tenant defaulting on her car loan cannot be a benchmark for measurng the stimulus. u ever heard of outlier is statistics? Having said that ,why is that all  the folks who are preaching non-government intervention right now didnt do so last year when Hank Paulson and Bush told us that the economy was on the brink of collapse?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Davidylan and spoilt,

I expected such typical responses and I got them.

Question. Would she still have a car today if there was no $.4.C? The likely anwer is yes. So the bottomline remains that the program provided the incentive that got her into this mess.

It was this same principle that led to the mortgage crisis that almost brought down the entire economy. Govt continued actions of borrowing money to pay for people who can't afford a product just to appear humane. It backfired before and its backfiring again. Ever talk about unintended consequences.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Did Obama ask her to run and grab a car she couldn't afford?

0
Avatar
Newbie

this is disgusting.

She was silly enough to buy a car she couldnt afford even with govt credit and her car got repoed and somehow its the fault of Obama? Really you anti-Obama neocons have degenerated so far down one would be tempted to think the day you cant breath it will be the fault of Obama's cap n' trade program.

So all those who got their cars repossessed last yr was all Bush's fault?

Even dems didnt blame Bush this much!

0
Avatar
Newbie

@topic,

I received a call yesterday from a credit company who wanted me to help them with access to one of my rental properties (which I declined of course). Apparently, my tenant provided my contact details in her application for the cash for clunkers program. Unfortunately, she has not been paying her car notes and the new truck is been repossessed. My dear tenant had a clunker that worked fine but she traded it in for a new one that she can't afford becuase of the govt credit.

The bottom line is this. She has lost her dependable clunker and is about to lose the new GMC truck she just acquired. Instead of her owning her dependable clunker and owing no man anything but love, she has now lost her clunker, received a hit on her credit history and is a wanted person by those she owes. All due to Obama's $.4.C program. Aint that typical?!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Let me just comment on the few highlighted lines in your opinion

[1 ] The Bush TARP program was an emergency laon given to the banks which some of them had already paid off. In fact, the Stimulus bill passed by Obama is even the worst beacause most of his programsporks has nothing to do with the immediate revival of the economy.

[2] No body is against health care reform but the modal of which it should be done. It was the father chrismas mentality that led to the current economic kaput . . . .  hmmm, did I say the liberal's affordable housing for all drove the irresponsible mortgage lending spearheaded by Fannie & Freddie mae.

                 Bush was quite unlucky that the inevitable outburst of past liberal agendas occurred during the final days of his presidency

0
Avatar
Newbie

History has shown  that Neocons would do the same thing if faced with realities. No idealogical thinking in rescuing the economy. Bush started with the first Stimulus, then followed by bailout  bonanza, then followed by injection of funds into GM and Chrysler.  It was Bush edministration that first bailed out AIG even breaking a statued legislation for over 100 yrs that FEDs should be renders to banks not insurance. Bush took Fanie and Fredie into federal receivership.

All of these actions, there is no indication whatsoever to show that a party that embarked on these measures would lecture us about fiscal responsibility. Its really one of the reasons why  I detest democrats, cos they bicker and dont know how to play politics. They sometimes seem like advanced Naija politicians. Bush went to war and got all he wanted, anybody who dared challenged his  plans was called unpatriotic,now  to provide folks with affordable health care,  folks are being called, unpatriotic, Nazis and socialists. It clearly shows that Dems dont know how to frame the debate.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The above is startling idiocy. To claim that no economist saw the US coming out of recession pre-2010 without the stimulus is to claim that you are aware of the predictions of every single economist on the face of the earth. That's the hallmark of a mendacious oaf.

The article I posted does not corroborate such drivel. All it shows is that those particular economists cited by the NYT couldn't see recovery in '09 without the stimulus. It's silly to deduce that it reflected the view of every single economist at the time.

I posted the article because I thought you meant that no one foresaw recovery this year, stimulus or no stimulus. Since you are clutching at their stated reason for bullishness, the proposed stimulus package, I can easily show you examples of projections of recovery this year without the stimulus: Here is a report by the non-partisan CBO:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

This report was prepared in February '09.

Exercise in stupidity. The article does not represent the view of every single economist. The NYT, being to Obama what FoxNews is to Bush, was seeking to make a case why Obama's policies would save us from doom. I repeat, it did not represent the view of every economist. If you don't know that, you are being an .

What you are effectively telling me is that you are aware of all the articles I read at the beginning of '09, that you are aware of the projections of every single economist. Obamania is a mental illness indeed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The above is startling idiocy. To claim that no economist saw the US coming out of recession pre-2010 without the stimulus is to claim that you are aware of the predictions of every single economist on the face of the earth. That's the hallmark of a mendacious oaf.

The article I posted does not corroborate such drivel. All it shows is that those particular economists cited by the NYT couldn't see recovery in '09 without the stimulus. It's silly to deduce that reflected the view of every single economist at the time.

I posted the article because I thought you meant that no one foresaw recovery this year, stimulus or no stimulus. Since you are clutching at their stated reason for bullishness, the proposed stimulus package, I can easily show you examples of projections of recovery this year without the stimulus: Here is a report by the non-partisan CBO:The http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9958/01-08-Outlook_Testimony.pdf

This report was prepared in February '09.

Exercise in stupidity. The article does not represent the view of every single economist. The NYT, being to Obama what FoxNews is to Bush, was seeking to make a case why Obama's policies would save us from doom. I repeat, it did not represent the view of every economist. If you don't know that, you are being an .

What you are effectively telling me is that you are aware of all the articles I read at the beginning of '09, that you are aware of the projections of every single economist. Obamania is a mental illness indeed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

that's slow because that was obviously NOT what i was saying. My point was that WITHOUT THE STIMULUS no economists saw the US coming out of the recession before 2010 which the article you ignorantly put up CORROBORATED.

err that FALSE, judging by the article YOU posted yourself without thoroughly reading . . . the US coming out of recession this yr was predicated SOLELY on the stimulus package not on a "variety of sources". The article is very clear on this point.

Even the WSJ completely blows this lie out of the water.

Stay on point pls.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A few minutes ago, it was clearly not true any such predictions were made in January/February 2009. Then, he rests his case on an article predicting Q3 growth even though he insists there will be no growth till next year.

There were predictions in January/February '09 of a return to growth. Some attributed the return to a variety of causes, one of each was the anticipated stimulus package. However, the Q3 growth we're experiencing is not as result of the stimulus package because it has been too slow in its implementation to create any impact already. Fairly simple argumnent for any lucid mind to grasp.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ DAVID. Has the 'OPEN YOUR MIND' thread been locked? I've being trying to post a comment but It ain't coming up.

0
Avatar
Newbie

To continue arguing with the blind is a lost cause.

0
Avatar
Newbie

From the same article our dear highly knowledgeable 4Play was quoting . . .

But in the absence of that government stimulus, the grim economic headlines of 2008 will probably continue for some time, these forecasters acknowledge.

“Without this federal largess, the consensus forecast for 2009 is for the recession to continue through most of the year,” said Randell E. Moore, executive editor of Blue Chip Economic Indicators, which conducts the monthly survey of forecasters.

There is none more blind than he who refuses to see.

This of course in response to this obvious fraud . . .

Infact if anything, the link 4Play provided for us was an even more strident case for why the fiscal stimulus was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

but of course we are all obamabots! What do we know.

0
Avatar
Newbie

[

igweusa

Let me just comment on the few highlighted lines in your opinion

[1 ] The Bush TARP program was an emergency laon given to the banks which some of them had already paid off. In fact, the Stimulus bill passed by Obama is even the worst beacause most of his programsporks has nothing to do with the immediate revival of the economy.[/b]

This cannot be farther from the truth. Why did Bush pass a stimulus package that gave $152 Billion to Americans? This is about 20% of Obama's stimulus and yet it didnt stop millions of job loss and financial meltdown. Stock markets were  down. Comparative to Obama's package which has been expended by less than 20%, it has brought stability, stopped hemorrhaging of jobs, markets have peaked, confidence has been restored, credit freeze has eased up, housing index is up. If Bush's stimulus cannot be classified as a socialist policy, why do folks like you keep talking about socialism since Obama's package didnt give any father Christmas bonanza to Americans? TARP was not an emergency, it was meant to buy up troubled and toxic assets from troubled banks, and FEDs would sell them only when they could make money going by Swedish model. So it could not be an emergency loan when there was no time frame when the  markets would create a demand for these toxic assets, besides there are no ascribed values on these toxic assets since nobody wants t buy them. Dont get urself confused these banks are posting illusionary profits  since they still have toxic assets with no values .They simply dont want any legislation that would get in their old ways of doing business, that's why they are "paying' back. The issue with you guys on the extreme right is what you call your dog. If you give govt money to big corporation and don't demand any thing in return, its free market and capitalism at work, but when you demand for accountability, its called big government. Let a solvent corporation stay afloat without government intrusion and nobody will get in their  way of doing business, but immediately folks like you who shout capitalism or communism ask for them to be bailed out, big uncle Sam is going to wield a big stick.

[2 ] TNo body is against health care reform but the modal of which it should be done. It was the father chrismas mentality that led to the current economic kaput . . . .  hmmm, did I say the liberal's affordable housing for all drove the irresponsible mortgage lending spearheaded by Fannie & Freddie mae.

                 Bush was quite unlucky that the inevitable outburst of past liberal agendas occurred during the final days of his presidency .[/b]

This is the most blatant disregard for factuality. Bush was handed an economy that was awash with hundreds of billions in surplus and an economy that was producing millions of jobs  and he  left behind the largest deficit, shattered economy that reduced GPD and American  global competitiveness. You call this unlucky? You are delusional with realities.    Folks like you with insurance pay for those without insurance  when they go to hospitals  since such visits are not outlawed. The hospitals would in turn pass the loss to big Uncle Sam and the government shoulders that loss. Simple capitalism  you only pay taxes on gains so the govt is the loser and you are taxed to cover the cost of providing health care to those who dont have it,  What is the way to go about this? Bring plans on board, not NO, NO like in immigration debate, but health care is taking 18% of the GDP and yet over 16% of of the population is not covered.  Tell me anything Republicans would have done differently since this financial crisis started under teir watch. John McCain voted for the bail out, so he would continued on Bush's path if he had won.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This from the article you quoted predicting a quick end to the recession . . .

For this rosy picture to play out, they are counting on the Obama administration and Congress to come through with a substantial stimulus package, at least $675 billion over two years.

It was the second paragraph so you had no excuse not to have seen it. Perhaps you can ask those economists who you revere so much as to cite how they thought such a puny amount of cash could turn around the US economy so quickly.

I rest my case with those who choose to be deliberately misled. There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It's a bit late in London but I thought I make out time to refute David's implicit suggestion that he is aware of every economists' predictions made this year.

The predictions in January '09 that the recession will end in Q3 sparked heated debates in some of the econo blogs: Here is one article from the NYT:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/economy/03econ.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss This is dated 05 January '09. If you want more, I can get you loads more such early predictions.

I'm sure some people find it hard to believe that Obama is not responsible for some of the positive things happening but the truth is more complex than some of the propaganda people are being fed.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Of course, you are aware of all the predictions ever made by every single economist. Your knowledge is staggering!

The answer is in your statement. The stimulus is $750bn. The US economy is $14 trillion. You think $112bn(15% and less than 1% of GDP) turned around a $14 trillion economy? A quintessential Obamabot.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That's real funny because that is clearly not true. Even now that the economy is turning we arent likely to have positive GDP until next yr. Infact the -1% GDP growth rate was a huge surprise to economists who didnt expect it to get better so soon.

To say the stimulus has not worked even though less than 15% of it has been spent so far is just trying to be dishonest.

0
Avatar
Newbie

As early as late January/early February, some economists were predicting positive GDP numbers in Q3. That argument was used during the stimulus debate to state that Obama the fiscal stimulus was unnecesary as the economy was bound to turn around.

The Fed is not an extension of the Obama administration and QE only started in March, not during the Bush era.

0
Avatar
Newbie

this is odd . . . by all forecasts the recession was not expected to end until late 2010 if the Fed did nothing. They had been pumping cash into the economy since Bush, the interest rates where already zero. why didnt it turn around before it go this bad?

The WSJ cant be lying . . . they arent exactly a mouthpiece for Obama. - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125185379218478087.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

Can you explain how the recent turn around came about. I'm always happy to be educated.

Let me give you my own view. QE pumped lots of cash into the system and companies after having destocked inventories drastically have to restock. That's what turns the economy around. I'm sure you believe that Obama waved some magic wand which turned the economy around

0
Avatar
Newbie

This just cost you any credibility you had on this issue. I laugh in greek . . . the economy is now turning OF ITS OWN ACCORD? Even the WSJ (as conservative as it is) did not make such a blunder. They had a piece on it 2 weeks ago, go read it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Now! The economy is turning around now and it's not because of anything Obama has done. Do you think it's ''Cash for Clunkers'' or the fiscal stimulus bill that is causing the recent turn around?

Anything Obama is doing adds nothing but debt. I know politicians must be seen to be 'doing something' but it's outrageous for politicians to be endangering their country's economic well being so that they can be re-elected.

0
Avatar
Newbie

That's a different thing to reaching for the lazy explanation of attributing opposition to Obama as simply the product of racial prejudice. The fiscal outlook for the US is dire, the views of what causes this dire outlook may differ but it is perfectly understandable why people will protest about inevitable tax rises due to the massive deficits. In essence, the protesters are right for the wrong reasons.

Of course, if Obama does nothing, Glen Beck and Hannity will be the first to condemn him as a traitor but Obama's/Democrat's political expediency is no reason to load up the US with more debt.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Here's the problem though . . . that was PRECISELY what the teabaggers were protesting AGAINST! Maybe you shld have watched Fox News in Feb-March. We were continously inundated with pundits predicting the collapse of the economy for bailing out the auto and financial industries. Is this not the reason they accuse Obama of being a socialist who wants to control the banks and now their healthcare?

Maybe Obama shld have left them to collapse so the same hypocrites can turn around and accuse him of doing nothing.

Its much easier to criticise from our armchairs than to proffer solutions. You say Obama shld have sat still until the business cycle turned . . . that would have been when? 2010 when the democrats would have lost their majority hold in congress for doing exactly what you advocate?

I doubt you understand the folks in Pelosi's video . . . i repeat - they are not attacking Obama based on ideology.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@4play

if the documentary was from mrs pelosi what about it? was it a lie? was it fundamentally false?or you just dismiss it b/c it was from a person you hate? like the white racists dismis people based on their color and sheer hatred? answer me, you educated slowpoke.

sometimes, it is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

pathetic

0
Avatar
Newbie

The only thing I agree with the President doing is bailing out the financial industry because the industry is the cornerstone of the economy. Beyond that, the President should do nothing more.

The economy has a business cycle. It's not a command economy. All Americans must do is batten down the hatches until the business cycle turns. The Fed is already pumping trillions into the economy through QE. Any other thing Obama does makes things worse in the long term.

0
Avatar
Newbie

they've been trying to moot the tax hike possibility lately and i believe they will need to do this if they must avoid a ballooning deficit. But doing nothing IMO is much worse than spending. There was no knowing when the recession would bottom out.

Raising taxes was the EXACT REASON WE HAD THE TEA PARTIES! You cant be taken seriously if you're crying about a deficit and fighting a tax increase!

0
Avatar
Newbie

For God's sake, if you are going to incur deficits that eventually top 100% GDP, taxes will have to go up irrespective of current tax policies. This is such a simple concept that shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.

There is no point giving me a tax cut now when I have to pay for it in the future. How do you pay for national debt at 100% GDP,do you think money will fall from the skies?

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is a bloody joke. Let be more accurate. Bush accumulated + $4 trillion but while you can 'hide' the cost from the budget, you can't hide it from the national debt. That's just hogwash.

Obama has not announced his spending plans yet? Where you sleeping when the administration projected $9trillion in extra debt?

Tell you what he should do. Don't spend like a drunken sailor.

0
Avatar
Newbie

4Play YOU"RE PATENTLY LYING HERE.

The tax protest was about the economy? What economy? They were protesting taxes in March when most of them got reduced taxes?

When Bush first ordered the bailouts where were they?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who watches a documentary by Nancy Pelosi's daughter? Might as well watch a documentary made by Sean Hannity for 'insight' into leftist thinking. Blithering .

The tax protest is about the economy, no doubt heightened by partisanship, but well grounded in genuine fears. Only a simpleton believes that criticisms of Obama must necessarily be race motivated.

0
Avatar
Newbie

i doubt you know what you're talking about either. Bush didnt incurr $3tr, what he did was hide the cost of the wars from the books so everything looked manageable. Now that Obama has placed everything in the open everyone is crying?

He hastnt presented a yrly budget yet and everyone is already crying about deficit? WHAT SHLD HE HAVE DONE? Raised taxes or folded his hands and watched the economy implode to avoid a deficit? Its not like Bush left him a surplus and he's recklessly spending it all. He inherited a deficit and WORSE a tanking economy and 2 horribly expensive wars . . . i guess you all expect him to fight the war and generate a surplus no?

Its to avoid the deficit that he is willing to let Bush tax cuts expire in 2011.

I asked again . . . if these folks are only angry about deficits where were they for the last 8 yrs?

0
Avatar
Newbie

4play

you are pathetic. we were discussing a documentary and you jumped to talk about fiscal issues. where was that in what i was discussing with david? brilliant slowpoke

0
Avatar
Newbie

People on each side of the political divide are by definition hypocrites. During the Bush era, Obama and other Democrats never failed to express concerns about ballooning deficits, until they got into power and made projections that will make the Bush deficits look like child's play. That still doesn't mean that there is something nefarious at work when they make such criticisms.

Will the protesters been as passionate about the deficits if Obama was a Republican? No. Is it evidence that they are a bunch of racists? Absolutely not. People's minds are more focused by flaws they perceive in the policies of parties they don't support, however, to jump to a conclusion that it is all down to racism is the height of absurdity.

Ultimately, the fiscal outlook of the US will drive even the least partisan to anger. The alternative is to stop the spending binge by the Fed Govt. The monetary stimulus by the Fed Reserve is enough to revive and put the economy on a sustainable growth path in the long term.

0
Avatar
Newbie

you dont seem to get the point. The issue isnt about serious ideological differences with Obama, its the fact that these people opposing Obama have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what you are talking about. They are not ballistic about their future tax bill, if they were they would not have supported 2 unsustainable wars on terror.

Its funny how there are so many critics of Obama's economic policy who dont proffer a single alternative solution to the problems he is facing.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The kind of drivel you 2 are spouting, it's embarrassing.  Cries of racism is the refuge of the clueless.

Obama's spending policies are unsustainable without either massive across the board tax hikes, as even the NY Times' editorial acknowledges recently, or an economic meltdown. One can always point to loopy critics to de-legitimise genuine concerns about the the direction of economic policy but such critics exist on both sides, remember the percentage of Democrats who thought Bush had something to do with 9-11? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/bush_administration/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance.

If your spending plans mean that you are going to incur debts at almost 3 times the rate Bush incurred them, do you expect some people not to go ballistics about their future tax bill?

0
Avatar
Newbie

One of the kids on clip 5 said if Obama won he'd move to Canada . . . i'm just wondering if he's aware that socialist single-payer healthcare is the Canadian system.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The dude in clip 3 from 7:12 just makes me understand the real angst of these people. He's shedding real tears and disappointed with America because "at one time they (white people) used to be top dogs in America but now are nothing no more". He claims he was from the old school, apparently the time when blacks had to stand up for whites in buses and had to queue at the back to use "colored only" restrooms.

He cant believe one of them has actually risen to be president. Folks like this wont mind going to jail for life if they can take out Obama with a rifle.

It isnt about socialism or taxes or bad government for these guys . . . its about race. It always was. Tayo, i think is a bit deluded if he thinks these folks are fighting an ideological battle.

Clip 3 . . . 8:25 - i'm not partial to blacks. Case closed really.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I read an excellent analysis of their problem once . . . most of them are economically disadvantaged folks whose only consolation in life is that at least they are not black. To see a black man as their CIC must have come as a rude shock to them.

0
Avatar
Newbie

An 'interesting' view on debt.

://www.zerohedge.com/article/congressman-pete-stark-explains-leverage-tells-reporter-get-Bleep-out&feature=player_embedded#t=269

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.