Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:33 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,308,316 times
Reputation: 3225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um, Bush bailed out the auto industry, not Obama

bush saved auto industry - Bing

I guess the only thing that can be called a success is the number of people that dont even have a clue what the hell they are talking about.. No surprise they all happen to be Obama supporters.
You can't have it both ways: you can't blame Obama for continuing Bush's spending and then adding his own spending to spend our way out of the Bush/GOP economic mess they left behind, and then turn around and claim that bailout policies that republitards mostly went on record to oppose 'saved' the economy.

Look, I have and still do give Bush at least the credit he deserves for having the wisdom and stones to tell his own party to stuff it in the closing months of his second term. It was one of the few good decisions he made as president. But at the same time, the real story here is that democratic policies of using taxpayer money to support the economy work, and the philosophy of l'aissez faire does not. That has been proven time and time again, over and over, throughout history. It was proven in the 1930s, again in the 1990s, and once again here in the year 2012.

Just accept it and embrace it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:34 AM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,038,933 times
Reputation: 9407
What aren't Liberals piissed about these obscene profits? Tell us how Exxon and GM are different in the world of corporate profits, subsidies, and every other gripe that Democrats and Liberals dream up against corporate America?

Is this another round of Hypocrisy from the Left?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:34 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,868,515 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Tell that to the millions of people who still have jobs and incomes to spend supporting private enterprise. A little knowledge of how economics actually works, and not how it's explained on some tinpot radio host's show, goes a long, long way.
Where does the money come from in order to give to these corporations?

What millions of people with jobs? We have 1.6M less jobs now, than when Obama was sworn into office

Furthermore, what millions of jobs would have been lost? You can join Einstein in the corner for not having a clue about bankruptcy proceedures in america. Until you learn that bankrutpcy doesnt mean no jobs, your opinion on the subject is meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Get used to it: FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!
No surprise that those who know the least, are Obama supporters
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
What aren't Liberals piissed about these obscene profits?
Why do you think of it as obscene profits? I'm actually celebrating that it was worth saving jobs for over a million Americans and that the profitability now actually helps payback, while there are more people working.

Why are YOU sad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade View Post
Who says I was whining about it? But you proved my point that I have made over and over that both parties are in full support of corporate fascism. Each side just favors their corporations and hates the other sides corporations , I appreciate your courage of coming out of the closet.
I would never expect you to be honest about your feelings. So, I dig through the emotions embedded in your posts. There, I came out of the closet... really! Not that I ever wanted to keep this a secret but hey, if that acceptance makes you feel better, it is the least I could do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:37 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,868,515 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
You can't have it both ways: you can't blame Obama for continuing Bush's spending and then adding his own spending to spend our way out of the Bush/GOP economic mess they left behind, and then turn around and claim that bailout policies that republitards mostly went on record to oppose 'saved' the economy.
Actually you can, one has absolutely not a fricken thing to do with the other..

You can save the bankrupting of america, and still not have an economic recovery, thus the reason why Obama continues to spend, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Look, I have and still do give Bush at least the credit he deserves for having the wisdom and stones to tell his own party to stuff it in the closing months of his second term. It was one of the few good decisions he made as president. But at the same time, the real story here is that democratic policies of using taxpayer money to support the economy work, and the philosophy of l'aissez faire does not. That has been proven time and time again, over and over, throughout history. It was proven in the 1930s, again in the 1990s, and once again here in the year 2012.

Just accept it and embrace it.
It doesnt come close to working.. How exactly does taking money out of the economy and giving it to government, save the economy? Thats beyond ridiculous. Even Clinton knew better than to say and do something that stupid. Clinton cut taxes, cut spending, and the result, a jump in economic growth. Obama is doing the exact opposite, but you expect the same result. Why?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um, the original argument which I responded to, was a LIE, which I corrected. Just like your claim here that people are celebrating the collapse of the auto industry.
It wasn't a lie. About 480K private sector jobs were indeed lost in October 2008. You promoted the idea of only 240K jobs being lost. Why did you have a hard time accepting that nearly a half million jobs were lost, and despite the facts at hand against your whims, you're hell bent on calling it a lie?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:55 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,868,515 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
It wasn't a lie. About 480K private sector jobs were indeed lost in October 2008. You promoted the idea of only 240K jobs being lost. Why did you have a hard time accepting that nearly a half million jobs were lost, and despite the facts at hand against your whims, you're hell bent on calling it a lie?
I QUOTED the link that was provided
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Um, not even your own posting says that..

The U.S. economy lost 240,000 jobs in October
note the Italic

And it wasnt 480K in October 2008, it was exactly what I said it was.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/07/news.../jobs_october/
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The government reported more grim news about the economy Friday, saying employers cut 240,000 jobs in October -

ooh no, there I go again, posting a fact.. you must think I'm jumping for joy and celebrating..

Stop embarassing yourself
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Fine, backup your sense of reality by finding one post which supports your argument that I'd be happy with job losses.

Until you do, its nothing but childish idiotic bull ****
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I did in the other thread.
Still waiting for you to find a post which says I was happy with job losses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I QUOTED the link that was provided

note the Italic
What do you think I was noting? There usually isn't much to "note" in your threads other than lies anyway... and in this case, you were (perhaps conveniently) off by 240K.

Quote:
Still waiting for you to find a post which says I was happy with job losses.
Not thru Jan 2009, mind you. Every post since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 10:58 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,308,316 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
It doesnt come close to working.. How exactly does taking money out of the economy and giving it to government, save the economy? Thats beyond ridiculous. Even Clinton knew better than to say and do something that stupid. Clinton cut taxes, cut spending, and the result, a jump in economic growth. Obama is doing the exact opposite, but you expect the same result. Why?
Your premise is based on a false supposition, which is that money is being taken out of the economy to save the public sector; it's not a zero-sum proposition. The two sectors can and often do support each other - the fact that you cannot seem to grasp anything economically beyond what happens in your daily business dealings does not change this fact. If you're to facking lazy to do some research for yourself, well that's not my problem. And guess what, bub? The overall economy will recovery while you stand there screaming at the tops of your lungs.

Since you cite Clinton I feel it's important to point out something: he only cut taxes after a good five years of strong economic growth and after he started to have budget surpluses. And that was possible only after tax increases by both HW Bush and Clinton himself in term one. The jump in economic growth had already been ongoing for quite some time before he cut taxes. Looks like someone needs a little history lesson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
Looks like someone needs a little history lesson.
The intended audience hates history (when inconvenient).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top