Racing Past the Constitution

[SmarterthanYou]

A debt spread over hundreds of millions of taxpayers is easier for everyone to bear.

when my taxes go up, it's not easier.

The bottom line is Obama has to do something. For eight years things were moving in the wrong direction. One example is the tax rate that was chopped from 39% to 36% for the wealthy under Bush. We've seen the "trickle down" effect. More like something running down ones leg.

strange that during those 8 years I could get a job making more money than I am now with Obama as President.

 

[Canceled1]

when my taxes go up, it's not easier.

strange that during those 8 years I could get a job making more money than I am now with Obama as President.

Well using Apple's logic, soon everyone will lose their job under the Obama Adminstration and it will be easier to bear.

Nothing like going down with the crew.

Spread the misery....

 

[apple0154]

when my taxes go up, it's not easier.

strange that during those 8 years I could get a job making more money than I am now with Obama as President.

Not strange at all. Individuals and companies all felt they had plenty of money due to the giant Ponzi scheme everyone participated in so they spent a lot of money. People were investing in companies so companies could afford to pay high wages. Individuals could afford to pay contractors thinking they had a great portfolio. All they had were numbers on paper.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not strange at all. Individuals and companies all felt they had plenty of money due to the giant Ponzi scheme everyone participated in so they spent a lot of money. People were investing in companies so companies could afford to pay high wages. Individuals could afford to pay contractors thinking they had a great portfolio. All they had were numbers on paper.

so clintons economic plan worked?

 

[apple0154]

Oops, double post.

 

[apple0154]

Well using Apple's logic, soon everyone will lose their job under the Obama Adminstration and it will be easier to bear.

Nothing like going down with the crew.

Spread the misery....

The financial disaster started long before Obama arrived on the scene. Companies were already failing. It had nothing to do with taxes. Or maybe it did.

Where did that extra 3% go when Bush cut taxes for the wealthy from 39% to 36%? Maybe one could argue the tax cut resulted in the wealthy having more money to invest in the corrupt scheme that brought the house down?

If the wealthy had less money there would have been less people who invested in those companies. That would have resulted in less bailout money needed.

The "trickle down" effect amounted to the wealthy having more money to invest and when they lost it the less wealthy picked up the tab.

As asked before just what trickled down?

 

[apple0154]

so clintons economic plan worked?

It did for a while. The problem was the Bush gang never followed it or supervised it.

I watched an interview with the former head of AIG, the man responsible for starting the "financial products" division of the company. As he explained everything was fine and working great. The problem was, as he phrased it, you don't say you'll manage a portfolio and then put it in a safe and forget about it. You have to continually look at it and make adjustments.

All this nonsense about the Repubs wanting to correct things but the Dems preventing it is exactly that, nonsense. When it came to the Iraq war what did Bush do? He promoted it like the "Ginsu Knives" infomercials of the early 80s.

Why wasn't he warning us about the financial problem brewing, not just a quick mention in a speech but the central point, just like he did with the Iraq war? Well, I suppose anyone's guess is good but the bottom line is he failed as a leader.

Clinton's economic plan worked great but like any other economic plan it needed to be adjusted over time. As individuals we may set up an economic plan involving working two jobs, for example, to acquire money. Then we invest in a stock. We follow the stock and then, maybe, sell and invest in a rental property. We're constantly adjusting our plan. Each phase is successful for the time just like Clinton's plan was.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

You seem to have forgotten that we were heading into a recession during the latter part of the Clinton administration. This is what Bush inherited.

It did for a while. The problem was the Bush gang never followed it or supervised it.

I watched an interview with the former head of AIG, the man responsible for starting the "financial products" division of the company. As he explained everything was fine and working great. The problem was, as he phrased it, you don't say you'll manage a portfolio and then put it in a safe and forget about it. You have to continually look at it and make adjustments.

All this nonsense about the Repubs wanting to correct things but the Dems preventing it is exactly that, nonsense. When it came to the Iraq war what did Bush do? He promoted it like the "Ginsu Knives" infomercials of the early 80s.

Why wasn't he warning us about the financial problem brewing, not just a quick mention in a speech but the central point, just like he did with the Iraq war? Well, I suppose anyone's guess is good but the bottom line is he failed as a leader.

Clinton's economic plan worked great but like any other economic plan it needed to be adjusted over time. As individuals we may set up an economic plan involving working two jobs, for example, to acquire money. Then we invest in a stock. We follow the stock and then, maybe, sell and invest in a rental property. We're constantly adjusting our plan. Each phase is successful for the time just like Clinton's plan was.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Bush MADE the Bush depression - both of them.

 

[unphased]

Racing Past the Constitution
by George Will

WASHINGTON -- Rampant redistribution of wealth by government is now the norm. So is this: It inflames government's natural rapaciousness and subverts the rule of law. This degeneration of governance is illustrated by the Illinois Legislature's transfer of income from some disfavored riverboat casinos to racetracks.

Nice topic but personally I'd rather you "conservatives" join OUR (yes we libertarians have been fighting this good fight for a while) and SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR "CULTURAL" ISSUES We don't care nor do most Americans you folks and @ssholes like Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh can just step the fuck off, we don't need you and we don't want you nor do we care about the GOP (Fuck them)....

In other words get with the program of liberty or step the fuck off and go scream about legislativing moralty with the left... we'll win and all who opposed us will whine in the end .. (fuck you guys we'll laugh, The CONSTITUTION IS ON OUR SIDE ).

 

[apple0154]

You seem to have forgotten that we were heading into a recession during the latter part of the Clinton administration. This is what Bush inherited.

All the more reason Bush should have done something.

The same applies to the financial crisis. He mentioned it in a few speeches but did nothing. Compare that to the way he promoted the Iraq war.

Is there anyone alive today who doesn't realize a free-wheeling economy or the so-called "invisible hand" does not work? The economy is a vital part of everyone's life. The government has to be involved.

A rotting economy will destroy the country and the President is responsible for looking after the country. If a leader isn't responsible for the people he leads what the hell is his job?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The economy is a vital part of everyone's life. The government has to be involved.

The 'government' was assigned a handful of powers to 'regulate' the economy, yet for all of their supposed wisdom, they've ALWAYS done a brilliant job of screwing it up.

A rotting economy will destroy the country and the President is responsible for looking after the country. If a leader isn't responsible for the people he leads what the hell is his job?

This nation was not founded on the concepts of electing someone to be responsible for the people. The founders of this nation accepted their own responsibilities. If you would ever read the constitution, specifically Arts. 1 through 4, you'd know what his responsibilities actually are.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

It was a faux and over-heated economy which led to the recession. Both Clinton and Bush were right to not meddle and let the economy follow its natural course.

Bush kept his promise to reduce the budget deficit by one-half, something Obama will never be able to do as he promised, if his massive spending, out of control budget goes into effect.

All the more reason Bush should have done something.

The same applies to the financial crisis. He mentioned it in a few speeches but did nothing. Compare that to the way he promoted the Iraq war.

Is there anyone alive today who doesn't realize a free-wheeling economy or the so-called "invisible hand" does not work? The economy is a vital part of everyone's life. The government has to be involved.

A rotting economy will destroy the country and the President is responsible for looking after the country. If a leader isn't responsible for the people he leads what the hell is his job?

 

[apple0154]

The 'government' was assigned a handful of powers to 'regulate' the economy, yet for all of their supposed wisdom, they've ALWAYS done a brilliant job of screwing it up.



This nation was not founded on the concepts of electing someone to be responsible for the people. The founders of this nation accepted their own responsibilities. If you would ever read the constitution, specifically Arts. 1 through 4, you'd know what his responsibilities actually are.

Regulate the economy. Do you think the Founding Fathers' intention was for the President to sit and watch while the economy goes down the toilet?

 

[apple0154]

It was a faux and over-heated economy which led to the recession. Both Clinton and Bush were right to not meddle and let the economy follow its natural course.

Bush kept his promise to reduce the budget deficit by one-half, something Obama will never be able to do as he promised, if his massive spending, out of control budget goes into effect.

Sure, he reduced the budget deficit by not including the cost of the wars. That's like a guy saying he cut his spending in half but doesn't include his bar bill.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Tell me what presidents have ever included the cost of wars in their budgets. Answer: NONE I am looking for Obama to change his mind on that one too.

Sure, he reduced the budget deficit by not including the cost of the wars. That's like a guy saying he cut his spending in half but doesn't include his bar bill.

 

[apple0154]

Tell me what presidents have ever included the cost of wars in their budgets. Answer: NONE I am looking for Obama to change his mind on that one too.

So, a round of applause for a President who cut the budget in half while spending trillions of dollars on wars while watching the private sector almost collapse the economy? That's like filling up ones piggy bank while withdrawing thousands of dollars from their bank account.

 

[TuTu Monroe]

Rigggghhhhhtttt!! Do yourself a favor and look at the CBO report. They found that Obama's projected deficits are more than double what they would be if Obama had just stuck with the spending and tax proposals left by the Bush Administration.

The CBO also said that Obama's record deficits would mean a record national debt, one that would total 17 trillion. up from the durrent 6.7 trillion.

I am sure this doesn't bother you, but it sure as hell bothers me.

So, a round of applause for a President who cut the budget in half while spending trillions of dollars on wars while watching the private sector almost collapse the economy? That's like filling up ones piggy bank while withdrawing thousands of dollars from their bank account.

 

[Canceled2]

It was a faux and over-heated economy which led to the recession. Both Clinton and Bush were right to not meddle and let the economy follow its natural course.

Bush kept his promise to reduce the budget deficit by one-half, something Obama will never be able to do as he promised, if his massive spending, out of control budget goes into effect.

For a good (non-partisan) analysis on Iraq spending.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Regulate the economy. Do you think the Founding Fathers' intention was for the President to sit and watch while the economy goes down the toilet?

I'm going to logically assume that you have NEVER read the constitution, because it explicitly and extremely specifically provides limited power to regulate the economy to ONE SINGLE BRANCH of this government and it is NOT the president.

would you care to try to reprhrase your argument using actual facts before you?