Ok. So. I am tired of the Republican Weakness.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong, thats AFTER Congress gives their permission, THEN the President must terminate the actions, being reported on.. You are quoting sections of the REPORTING requirements, and thinking its an authorization.. its not

In fact you quoted a section which even says you are wrong..

The reporting requirements are waived, unless its extended by law for another 60 day period.. And who writes laws? CONGRESS.. Congress cant extend by law an action they never authorized..

Good Lord. You realize you're arguing against what all legal authorities claim is true, right? The president needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (which he did), then he has 60 days to gain authorization.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Good Lord. You realize you're arguing against what all legal authorities claim is true, right? The president needs to notify Congress within 48 hours (which he did), then he has 60 days to gain authorization.

I can read the law very clearly and thats not what the law says.

And no, not all legal authorities are claiming this to be true, clearly only those trying to justify Obamas illegal action. Even candidate Obama said he wasnt authorized to do what President Obama is doing.

He does NOT have 60 days to gain authorization, the law says he has to get Congressional approval, which will last for 60 days, and if it lasts longer than 60 days he must report his findings and get ANOTHER 60 days.

If you dont comprehend the parts you quote, then dont quote them..

[Bluefly]

Wow. Let's just let this end after this. You're clearly entrenched in an ideology that doesn't afford views other than your own.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Yep.. but that doesnt mean that increasing taxes wont mean increased costs. I dont care what political philosophy you take, increasing costs are increasing costs..

Fact remains Obama lowered taxes for the middle and lower income brackets. Washington Post:

"Overall, he's been big on tax cuts and very reluctant to consider higher income or payroll taxes as a way to fund programs or close the deficit. As PolitiFact says, 'most Americans have seen lower taxes.'"

You are incorrect about every developing nation using it. Those who DIDNT use it, are recovering much faster because THEY DIDNT REMOVE MONEY FROM THE ECONOMY.. For heaven sakes, the government had to borrow by selling treasury bills, and those very same individuals who would be buying tbills would have invested in something else because investing is how they earn their living. They cant sit on their money because it becomes taxable..

You're trying to imply causation where there is only correlation. The US originated the economic collapse. Our housing and financial markets are what sent the global wave. Of course our economy was going to recover the slowest because we let our financial system deregulate (Canada maintained regulations and endured the recession quite well) and we let the whole sub-prime mortgage debacle happen.

Your posting gets even futher humorous by thinking we are paying anything back, and while the nation is now starting to recover, its doing so AFTER the stimulus bill is winding down, something I said right here on these forums would take place.

Again, causation where there is only correlation. Stimulus is designed to cushion the blow while the markets recover. Stimulus spending is designed to, ideally, end just as the recovery is getting legs. That's what's happening, so you're actually arguing against your point by proving that stimulus did its job.

The alternative, to shut down federal spending as McCain proposed... well, we'll probably soon see in the coming days how well that would have worked out. No doubt the Republican effort to use this budget to push anti-choice and pro-environmental destruction political goals will harm our economic recovery.

When you REMOVE money from the economy, not allowing the money that normally would have to be invested in order to delay capital gains taxes owed, then you are INCREASING unemployment. If government has the money, then YOU dont and if YOU arent spending, people get laid off.. Its seriously not sinking in with you, is it?

You keep talking about removing money from the economy. It's just shifting the money (and bringing more in) in a way that you do not agree with. That's fine. Stimulus is certainly not an ideal solution to anything, but it's usually better than the alternative. A whole lot of people had jobs and services provided that actually moved the money through the economy. I've personally witnessed hundreds of people with stimulus jobs. They make money they otherwise wouldn't. They buy groceries and pay rent or a mortgage and all the other things that keep capital flowing through our economy when it otherwise wouldn't.

And while 372 metro areas had their rates drop, THE REST OF THE NATIONS CLIMBED. Your position is that it doesnt matter if the whole country collapses, provided certain targeted areas get a boost is laughable..

You can keep laughing and make absurd claims about "my position", but the fact is that the unemployment rate has been on a steady decline for months now - down to 8.8%. That's widespread, across diverse sectors and regions.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Wow. Let's just let this end after this. You're clearly entrenched in an ideology that doesn't afford views other than your own.

Not even close to true. What I disagree with are ideologies that defies common sense and lacks every basic economic practice known to make kind..

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Fact remains Obama lowered taxes for the middle and lower income brackets. Washington Post:

"Overall, he's been big on tax cuts and very reluctant to consider higher income or payroll taxes as a way to fund programs or close the deficit. As PolitiFact says, 'most Americans have seen lower taxes.'"

I dont givea rats ass what the Washington Post says. If you lower tax A, and then raise other taxes which are far greater than the taxes you cut, the end result is an INCREASE in taxes. The fact that you dont see these taxes taken out of your paycheck doesnt mean you arent paying them. Where on gods earth do you think the money for the taxes comes from?

Originally Posted by Bluefly

You're trying to imply causation where there is only correlation. The US originated the economic collapse.

Wrong again.. the economic collapse began in Switzerland when UBS had to write down AAA credit mortgages which caused equity firms to increase their collateral requirements for overnight borrowing. And when the collateral requirements couldnt be met, overnight borrowing ceased world wide..

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Our housing and financial markets are what sent the global wave.

This part is true, UBS was writing down american mortgages, but those mortgages were written BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT.. You can celebrate governmental doing stupid things like this, I prefer to object to them because I dont support economic collapses and government creating artificial bubbles. Anyone with 1/2 a brain seen this one coming.

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Of course our economy was going to recover the slowest because we let our financial system deregulate (Canada maintained regulations and endured the recession quite well) and we let the whole sub-prime mortgage debacle happen.

Wrong.. deregulations did not cause the collapse, it was governmental encouraging of bad mortgages and then insuring those mortgages so they could be bought by investment bankers who wouldnt have bought them without the guarantees in place. Canada maintained the recession quite well because Canada doesnt manipulate the markets anywhere close to what we do..

Originally Posted by Bluefly

Again, causation where there is only correlation. The stimulus is designed to cushion the blow while the markets recover. Stimulus spending is designed to, ideally, end just as the recovery is getting legs. That's what's happening, so you're actually arguing against your point by proving that stimulus did its job.

WRONG.. The stimulus was designed to artificially inflate the GDP figures to get us out of a recession technically but the end of a recession is not the same as a recovery. A recession is determined by the growth of the GDP while a recovery is determined by business growth. Where you guys get all confused is you pretend they are synopsis with one another, but they arent. The imaginary claim that a stimulus is only there to last until the economy recover is laughable.. It was designed, according to you guys, TO STIMULATE.. Not substain the nation until we recover. now you are flip flopping on its intended purpose which means to me, you are admitting it didnt stimulate a dam thing..

Originally Posted by Bluefly

The alternative, to shut down federal spending as McCain proposed... well, we'll probably soon see how well that would have worked out. No doubt the Republican effort to use this budget for anti-abortion and environmental destruction political goals will harm our economic recovery.

yeah, just like it did in the 1990's.. You see the problem with the policies you are supporting is, we have a very clear history of what happens when government spends, and what happens when they dont.

The economy has NEVER improved when government artificially pumps up the economy. Even during the famous "new deal" unemployment rates stayed over 10% for a decade, a result celebrated by many liberals.

And then we have the 1990's, where liberals proclaimed less governmental spending was going to starve people to death. Hillary Clinton herself said she knew someone who had to resort to eating pet food.. (dam I wish I could find that video).. but the end result was MORE people working, lower deficits (we never did reach a surplus), and a boombing economy. yeah we dont want to repeat that again.. do we?

Originally Posted by Bluefly

You keep talking about removing money from the economy. It's just shifting the money (and bringing more in) in a way that you do not agree with.

another worse, shifting the money out of the economy where it cant be spent, into governmental hands. Remind me again, why did GE need $3.2B from the stimulus bill?

Originally Posted by Bluefly

That's fine, but a whole lot of people had jobs and services provided that actually moved the money through the economy. I've personally witnessed hundreds of people with stimulus jobs. They make money they otherwise wouldn't. They buy groceries and pay rent or a mortgage and all the other things that keep money (even stimulus) flowing through our economy.

oooh I see.. because YOU benefited, you dont give a rats patute about the effect on the COUNTRY. This is that "I got mine" mentality!!

Originally Posted by Bluefly

You can keep laughing and make absurd claims about "my position", but the fact is that the unemployment rate has been on a steady decline for months now - down to 8.8%. That's widespread, across diverse sectors and regions.

The unemployment is HIGHER now, than when Obama passed the stimulus bill. The unemployment rate stopped climbing BEFORE Obama passed the stimulus bill.. The stimulus bill had NO effect on unemployment and if anything, helped keep the rate higher. The fact that its NOW dropping as the stimulus bill winds down and stops draining the money out of society is no coincidence.. The fact that tax cuts were passed, leaving more money into the economy, and employment climbing, is no coincidence. The fact that the GOP took over the House, stopping any such stupidity from taking place in the future, and employment climbing, is no coincidence..

You can pretend these things arent true but that doesnt mean they arent..