Why would anybody listen to Republicans ? The party of "No"

tieguy

Banned
Had republicans been the "party of No" from 2000' to 2008', they might still be the party of power til at least 2012'. Democrats should be grateful republicans only learned now to say no after the fact!

:happy-very:

Huh? We are now supposed to blame the republicans for the extra 2.5 trillion Obama is adding to our childrens deficit?

I don't think so.
I think its time the democrats start taking responsibility for thier own actions instead of our continuing to blame the republicans.
Bush never threw money around like the libcons are doing. The libcons are setting spending records that may never be broken.
 

over9five

Moderator
Staff member
Had republicans been the "party of No" from 2000' to 2008', they might still be the party of power til at least 2012'. Democrats should be grateful republicans only learned now to say no after the fact!

:happy-very:

Huh? We are now supposed to blame the republicans for the extra 2.5 trillion Obama is adding to our childrens deficit?

You are both right. Unfortunately, Obama is making the formerly freespending Republicans look like conservatives!
 

chev

Nightcrawler
Huh? We are now supposed to blame the republicans for the extra 2.5 trillion Obama is adding to our childrens deficit?

I don't think so.
I think its time the democrats start taking responsibility for thier own actions instead of our continuing to blame the republicans.
Bush never threw money around like the libcons are doing. The libcons are setting spending records that may never be broken.
I agree. Where is the fiscal responsibility they keep touting about? :angry:
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
increasing taxes on business thus restricting the capital available to create jobs

Working consumer spending and demand create jobs, business will hire reguardless whether their tax rate reverts back to the Clinton era.

if it were not for the fact that the free markets are not to blame for this mess. You see, it was the government who told banks to make loans to less credit worthy

Nobody is claiming consumer's and Gov't are not partially to blame, but for you to claim the private secter is free and clear is a real stretch. There are many examples but here's one: When you have money lender professionals (predators) encouraging everyday hard working people that "no problem", instead of that $150,000/$200,000 house we can qualifiy you for about the same amount of money for that $300,000/$400,000 house, what do you think the average Joe is going to fall for. Not only were these overnite brokers making greater profits but they were free and clear of any risks and defaults that they knew was enevitable. Look, if Wall Street free market Willi's can fool Ex-Fed Chairman Greenspan, they can certainly fool the average consumer. Not everybody is an economic guru like yourself.

Demonizing the most successful and hard working in our society for the benefit of the least productive will not help either.

As long as there's characters like Merill Lynch Exec's doling out $4 biliion in bonuses b4 BOA's aquisition, making millionaires out of hundreds of employees at the Merrill brokerage amid billions in losses. Rewards for failure riding on the tax payer's dime. Their certainly not angels...

who is the they you are talking about. You have the liberal idiots running the country. Are you saying one of those liberals will be invading someone.

Nice little fantasy story here diesel. Get some fresh air and try to get tuned in with the real world.

I suppose when you buy history books for the grandkids, '2000 thru '2008 will have alot of Sharpie footnotes written ontop of White Out....lol
"They" are Republicans asking for a repeat of the last eight years...FYI
You have no new ideas.....their stale...oh except now the RNC or CPAC or whatever your Homies call themselves are try'in to infused some "Hip Hop" :grill: Grill baby...Bling Bling...What size rims you running?

Have heard what FDR's treasury chief said about the deficit spending FDR was using to fix the broken economy back in the late 1903's. After 6 years of government spending he saw that nothing was helping, only WWII pulled the US out of the great depression.
Is that what you want now ? Another war time boom ?

Your on the right track their BaBa.....What did WWII provide the US to get out of the great Depression? Massive spending....Bingo we have a winner...only this massive spending has our future's investments behind it, not just armory that rusted after the war...

Huh? We are now supposed to blame the republicans for the extra 2.5 trillion Obama is adding to our childrens deficit?

I don't think so.
I think its time the democrats start taking responsibility for thier own actions instead of our continuing to blame the republicans.
Bush never threw money around like the libcons are doing. The libcons are setting spending records that may never be broken.

And not a peep out of Tieguy when Bush was quadrupling the debt, spending, and the size of Gov't....Hmm..Rep's mythology of less spending, small gov't since the Reagan days that keeps repeating itself every Rep Adm... Dem's like to spend, their no question, but somehow the last Dem balanced the budget.....go figure
 

Overpaid Union Thug

Well-Known Member
Every liberal debate regarding the economy hinges on the falsehood that it was Bush's "failed" policies that lead us into this recession. That is hilarious because research has shown (but of course Liberals choose to ignore it) that it was Liberal policies and bad decisions by individual consumers that caused the recession. When will they wake up?
 

The Other Side

Well-Known Troll
Troll
Every liberal debate regarding the economy hinges on the falsehood that it was Bush's "failed" policies that lead us into this recession. That is hilarious because research has shown (but of course Liberals choose to ignore it) that it was Liberal policies and bad decisions by individual consumers that caused the recession. When will they wake up?[/quote]


Right after you come into reality.:surprised:
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
How true.
Liberals tend to have very short memories .
Why just ask one about what happened after out troops left Vietnam. And they cheer, that we no longer had troops there. Try to mention the mass murders that resulted there and you get a blank stare, because they no longer had any interest in that region.
Liberal creed.....they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. And when they can not successfully argue against the facts then shift to personal attacks.
 

chev

Nightcrawler
After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.
Nope. Just a whole lot of dumb :censored2: sheep without a clue what O was really all about. All they saw was a free handout. What they never took into consideration was the consequences of electing this ultra liberal buffoon, along with his pack of jackasses in Congress, were.
:angry:
After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.
Hmmm, wasn't it the dems that said there were no problems whatsoever with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when there was conclusive evidence that they were in serious trouble? Was it not the dems that forced these lending institutions to make VERY high risk loans in the name of equality and then turned around and blamed them for the very thing they were forced to do?
Not to say these leaches for lending institutions did not take advantage of it, but less Govt. regulation is what was needed.

Our Federal govt. needs to go back to the basics and do what it was formed to do. Protect and serve the needs of the states that require more than what individuals could do. That does not mean to overstep their boundaries and regulate everything they can get their hands on.
I think too many people forget the proper meaning of United States of America. Every state is sovereign. The only power the federal govt. is supposed to have is the power the states give them. It is asinine the way these greedy, power hungry representatives have twisted the Constitution to fit their interpretation to serve their own financial objectives. And I do not just mean the dems here. It is an equal opportunity power grab that is simply disgusting. I'm tired of being sold out.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm fed up.
 
Last edited:

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Every liberal debate regarding the economy hinges on the falsehood that it was Bush's "failed" policies that lead us into this recession. That is hilarious because research has shown (but of course Liberals choose to ignore it) that it was Liberal policies and bad decisions by individual consumers that caused the recession. When will they wake up?

Hey Big,

I think it would be an excellent idea if you posted up some links to this research so it could be used here to prove the points you made.

D,

Relax dude, you've got nothing to sweat as it doesn' take much to realize that republicans in the end are all really on board with Obama's masterplan. Most did the Isakson hat dance by laying in add-ons to the stimulus bill but then knowing dems had the votes to get it through, the repubs. ran for the exits to fool the voters back home. A couple of items here & here just a tip of this iceberg.

And one other note, Greenspan was never fooled by anyone at anytime. He's only playing dumb now to skirt out from blame. If anyone is fooled, he's fooling you into buying that "I was fooled" nonsense. Greenspan understands business cycle theory and these guys knew when the economy turned south after 9/11 that intervention then using market distortions just to prop up a gov't for political purposes would have consequences down the road and thus here we are. The same will happen with the bailouts started by Bush and continuing with Obama and there will probably be some short term positive effects but down the road, the piper will come due demanding payment and it's OK with them because that will be for a later gov't to deal with. Like consumers wanting immediate gradifications, so goes gov't!

It's a real shame neither political party truly understands classical liberal theory ideals and traditions as it relates to good and proper economics!
 

chev

Nightcrawler

EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!!
Insane!
They even admit there will be a higher default rate like it is just light conversation.
The end of the video say it all, but too many Americans followed blindly to elect the first black president and his crappy "change" theme.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Nobody is claiming consumer's and Gov't are not partially to blame, but for you to claim the private secter is free and clear is a real stretch. There are many examples but here's one: When you have money lender professionals (predators) encouraging everyday hard working people that "no problem", instead of that $150,000/$200,000 house we can qualifiy you for about the same amount of money for that $300,000/$400,000 house, what do you think the average Joe is going to fall for. Not only were these overnite brokers making greater profits but they were free and clear of any risks and defaults that they knew was enevitable. Look, if Wall Street free market Willi's can fool Ex-Fed Chairman Greenspan, they can certainly fool the average consumer. Not everybody is an economic guru like yourself.

Evidently you do not understand the "free" in "free market". The word "free" does not mean free from getting a raw deal, or free from having to pay your obligations. It means you are free to contract as necessary. I've never understood why someone would so nonchalantly sign their name on paperwork that makes them liable for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. If they signed up for interest only, negative amortization, adjustable rate, or any other subprime loan and it came back to bite them then I say that's good. There is a word to describe these people, and that word is "renters". Someone who is so lacking in understanding their own finances or mortgage to not be able to pay it based on the terms of said contract were renters to begin with, and renters they should go back to being. You don't need a degree in economics to understand the terms of a mortgage, only a little due diligence in making sure you understand exactly what you are putting your name on before you sign it.



As long as there's characters like Merill Lynch Exec's doling out $4 biliion in bonuses b4 BOA's aquisition, making millionaires out of hundreds of employees at the Merrill brokerage amid billions in losses. Rewards for failure riding on the tax payer's dime. Their certainly not angels...

Do you think those people represent all wealthy individuals? What about the owner of several McDonald's franchises who puts all profit/loss on his/her own personal tax return? McDonalds is doing very well right now, but why would this franchisee take the risk of opening a new store if they don't know how much money the government will demand of their income? That is one of many ways a tax increase will cost this economy jobs. Obama's war on capitalism will only hurt us on the long run, and will prolong this recession for a long time to come.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
Evidently you do not understand the "free" in "free market". The word "free" does not mean free from getting a raw deal, or free from having to pay your obligations. It means you are free to contract as necessary. I've never understood why someone would so nonchalantly sign their name on paperwork that makes them liable for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. If they signed up for interest only, negative amortization, adjustable rate, or any other subprime loan and it came back to bite them then I say that's good. There is a word to describe these people, and that word is "renters". Someone who is so lacking in understanding their own finances or mortgage to not be able to pay it based on the terms of said contract were renters to begin with, and renters they should go back to being. You don't need a degree in economics to understand the terms of a mortgage, only a little due diligence in making sure you understand exactly what you are putting your name on before you sign it.

Point taken, but you paint with a broad brush and sweeping generalizations. Many have lost their jobs, recieved a reduction in pay, come down with illness or injuries to themselves or loved ones, many are stuck and can't borrow equity from their home and can't move or sell due to a nosedive in the Real Estate Market, and some just not financially savay and trusted the pro's. For you to be glad that these people got bit in the ***** is sad.



Do you think those people represent all wealthy individuals? What about the owner of several McDonald's franchises who puts all profit/loss on his/her own personal tax return? McDonalds is doing very well right now, but why would this franchisee take the risk of opening a new store if they don't know how much money the government will demand of their income? That is one of many ways a tax increase will cost this economy jobs. Obama's war on capitalism will only hurt us on the long run, and will prolong this recession for a long time to come.

Demand will dictate whether this franchise owner opens up another store, otherwise someone else will capitalize. McDonalds expanded during the Clinton era under his tax code as well.
 

Int'lguy

International Guy
In politics I believe in the ancient Chinese proverb:
"Feed a man a fish and he shall eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he shall eat for life"

Dems want to give you small stipens to keep you on the government rolls so that they may stay in power. Repubs want to create jobs "trickle down economics" so that you can take care of yourself and your family.
 

tieguy

Banned
Had republicans been the "party of No" from 2000' to 2008', they might still be the party of power til at least 2012'. Democrats should be grateful republicans only learned now to say no after the fact!

:happy-very:

Thats your position based on your assumption that most voters educate theirselves and were incensed that republicans did not cut discretionary spending. In fact most voters do not share the warped opinions of the fifty or so voters that belong to your obscure party. In fact most voters don't educate theirselves and thus the candidate that looked the best and sounded the best got elected. the good old likeability factor. Obama versus McCain is a huge likeability lean towards Obama.

Hate to break it to you. I know you're convinced that repubs suddenly discovered bush spent money like a liberal and that it took them 8 years to discover this fact. But again it came down to who looked the prettiest and who sounded the best.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
In politics I believe in the ancient Chinese proverb:
"Feed a man a fish and he shall eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he shall eat for life"

Dems want to give you small stipens to keep you on the government rolls so that they may stay in power. Repubs want to create jobs "trickle down economics" so that you can take care of yourself and your family.

Old Chinese Prophet "Confucuis" says "One who farts in Church, sits on pew"......

Oh BTW...The 1980's called "They want their trickle down politics back....

....I will agree, trickle down does create jobs....for illegal aliens....
 

JimJimmyJames

Big Time Feeder Driver
I see it this way, I blame Clinton and the Bush(s) for the mess we are in now. In fact, I think you can probably blame every president down to Hoover for the mess we are in now. But for recent history let's stick with Clinton and Bush(s).

Clinton inherits an economy from H.W that is in the dumps (I remember that was the last time I saw full-time drivers bumping part-timers). H.W.'s little foray into the Gulf, unlike WW2 which caused a post war economic boom (which, in retrospect, was a anamoly that I don't care to delve into here, but lets suffice to say that war does not usually create wealth but destroys it.), probably had a hand in this. So too, Reagan's unfortuanate policy of lowering taxes but unfortunately increasing spending (Heck, we did out spend the USSR and defeated them in the Cold War but let's not forget there was a price for doing that).

Clinton does nothing to get us out of this recession but because of the internet/personal computer boom, stocks rise, jobs are created, and we have the birth of the tech bubble. Unfortunately, reality sets in and Wall Street discovers that all the web is not pixalated in gold. Market gets saturated with hardware (which, no thanks to Clinton era polices, is mostly made in China), shutting down the initial strong demand for personal computers. And, if anything, consumers start to use the internet not to line advertisers pockets with cash, but to download music, movies, software for free, thus depriving stockholders of income. Tech bubble burts, W. inherits a mess.

What is W.'s solution? Through interest rate manipulation, the Fed creates an abundance of cheap money. What does the American consumer do with it? Why, refinance their homes not to lessen their debt but to create more of it! We went on the biggest spending spree since after WW2. This created a housing boom as people traded up for bigger and better. There was so much work that most people overlooked the fact that our country was being overrun with illegals, there was work for all! But, like all good (!?) things, this has all come to an end, thanks to greed and the government.

The government, in a bid to create more home ownership, told the banks to make more loans to those who may not be able to handle them. But did the government than tell the financial industry to package this debt into bundles that other's could invest in? Are we to believe that this entire melt down was caused by poor people defaulting on their loans? Or maybe, did the banks gleefully write as many loans as possible to everyone as they were making money hand over fist? Loaning small amounts to someone trying to buy an affordable housing unit is different than loaning money so somebody can trade his quaint little cape cod for a Mcmansion. Which borrower do you think hurt the banks more?

Nevertheless, only a fool would believe that the housing market was going to sustain this economy forever. What originally created this First World economy is what is creating China's now, a strong manufacturing based one. But since we have squandered that to save a buck at Walmart and to make our stocks go up a percent, I guess we will have to suffice by flipping eack other's pizzas as we pump each other's gas. Oh wait, we can get an illegal to do that cheaper so I guess us citizens are out of luck.

Add to this the incessant war mongering that we do. Heck this was just dandy when we were number one in the world financially. But since we are quickly becoming the opposite, we are running out of ways of paying for being the world's policeman for a world that resents us for wearing that uniform.

And I do understand W. had 9/11 land in his lap. But it landed there due to the negligence of both parties catering to a business community that has a lust for cheap labor that is so outrageous, that the government allows legal immigration from countries that have cultures that forment hatred of America while at the same time we have borders so wide open that we now ironically protect the South Korean border better than our own.

So, to sum up, I have no use for either party. They are two sides to the same wooden nickel. They both fail when it comes to protecting American lives and livelihoods. What we need is a real choice.
 

tieguy

Banned
I see it this way, I blame Clinton and the Bush(s) for the mess we are in now. In fact, I think you can probably blame every president down to Hoover for the mess we are in now. But for recent history let's stick with Clinton and Bush(s).

Clinton inherits an economy from H.W that is in the dumps (I remember that was the last time I saw full-time drivers bumping part-timers). H.W.'s little foray into the Gulf, unlike WW2 which caused a post war economic boom (which, in retrospect, was a anamoly that I don't care to delve into here, but lets suffice to say that war does not usually create wealth but destroys it.), probably had a hand in this. So too, Reagan's unfortuanate policy of lowering taxes but unfortunately increasing spending (Heck, we did out spend the USSR and defeated them in the Cold War but let's not forget there was a price for doing that).

One problem with that theory Clinton inherited an economy from HW that had just come out of a recession and was showing positive growth.


.
 

brett636

Well-Known Member
Point taken, but you paint with a broad brush and sweeping generalizations. Many have lost their jobs, recieved a reduction in pay, come down with illness or injuries to themselves or loved ones, many are stuck and can't borrow equity from their home and can't move or sell due to a nosedive in the Real Estate Market, and some just not financially savay and trusted the pro's. For you to be glad that these people got bit in the ***** is sad.

I paint with a broad brush because I believe a lot of people fall into the category where they could help themselves, but choose not too. Case in point 2 years ago I helped a friend move into a house him and his new wife had just purchased. Less than 2 months ago I again helped him move out as he was losing the house in foreclosure. He had a job in the housing market and lost it when it began going south. Keep in mind while he was letting his house get foreclosed on he still held onto a paid for motorcycle, a 3 year old SUV for his wife to drive who was not working which he was still making payments on, cable, high speed internet, a cell phone for both him and his wife, and all the other trappings of a typical middle class household. Only issue was that he didn't have the income to support it, nor the intestinal fortitude to do what was necessary to save his house. I know this is one case, but some people deserve to be kicked in the rear end in order to do what is necessary for themselves.

I maintain 3 months worth of expenses in savings(working on 6 months), low debt, and the understanding that if I have to I will sell off whatever I need to in order to keep my home. Even if it means selling things I really don't want to sell like my own motorcycle. People who purchase homes with little to no money down, living paycheck to paycheck, with credit card debt and car payments don't receive my sympathy. That is a recipe for disaster no matter how you cut it.


Demand will dictate whether this franchise owner opens up another store, otherwise someone else will capitalize. McDonalds expanded during the Clinton era under his tax code as well.
Perhaps that franchisee will delay opening a new store until he knows how much money the government will take from him in the future delaying creating jobs in an economy where it is desperately needed. Or how about this, I recently went to a boat, sport, and travel show where I may have considered purchasing a travel trailer, but with the proposed carbon credit taxes I will hold off until I know the full effect of how that will impact gasoline prices before I make any more large purchase decisions like that one. I'm far from "wealthy", but don't you think someone, somewhere may have benefited from my purchase?
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
I paint with a broad brush because I believe a lot of people fall into the category where they could help themselves, but choose not too. Case in point 2 years ago I helped a friend move into a house him and his new wife had just purchased. Less than 2 months ago I again helped him move out as he was losing the house in foreclosure. He had a job in the housing market and lost it when it began going south. Keep in mind while he was letting his house get foreclosed on he still held onto a paid for motorcycle, a 3 year old SUV for his wife to drive who was not working which he was still making payments on, cable, high speed internet, a cell phone for both him and his wife, and all the other trappings of a typical middle class household. Only issue was that he didn't have the income to support it, nor the intestinal fortitude to do what was necessary to save his house. I know this is one case, but some people deserve to be kicked in the rear end in order to do what is necessary for themselves.

I don't know of any statistical measure we can apply to your friends scenario vs others who have fallen on to hard luck and are frugal with their money. I could of been one of those statistics, back in 97' after a divorce with 2 kids, I was almost wipe out. Luckily I had access to borrow from my 401k and cash in some stock when needed. I made a good living, however child support payments made it difficult to stay afloat. I lived paycheck to paycheck, I know what it's like. But this demonstrates the difference in our idealology. We both agree milkers of the system is a drag, having said that, one or us is for compassion and generally cares for the well being of his fellow man to be productive, and one for individualism, responsibility, everyman for himself and tough luck if any unforeseen circumstances knock at your door....hopefully you'll never have to face adversity or tough luck and won't be cast aside as a financial liability.

[Tieguy=495275]
One problem with that theory Clinton inherited an economy from HW that had just come out of a recession and was showing positive growth
[/quote]

Don't fret Triple J, thats just Tieguy being Tieguy....Well written post! IMO
 

tieguy

Banned

Don't fret Triple J, thats just Tieguy being Tieguy....Well written post! IMO[/quote]

tieguy being tieguy by quoting the truth?
 
Top