Should Republicans be worried?

Obfuscate said:
I still am, unless you don't think a permanent 10% unemployment rate and crushing debt and commodity inflation isn't a bad thing for the future of our economy.

Of course GM should have gone bankrupt, the bond holders become shareholders and the comanies get restructured and/or sold off.

Maybe the banks should not have been left to bankruptcy but just recievership and the Fed could have broken them up to the small and mid size banks and if they needed could have used any bail out funds to go in that direction. Not make too big to fail banks even bigger, the guys who helped take the economy down getting rewarded isn't a good long term policy and only hurts peoples "animal spirits"

Also, I'm not a guy who ever said to do nothing, I supported capital requirements, I supported the growth of M2 when velocity of money slowed drastically, I supported raising the FDIC limits to $250,000. These things did help. The bailouts did not, it was throwing good money at bad money and rewarding incompitence.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just disagree w/ the economics, and I'm glad we did the bailouts & stimulus. To me, it's all the same, debt-wise - the economy lost trillions in the crash, and would have lost much more (imo) if not for the bailouts & stimulus. You said that these delayed the recovery, but anyone who advocated creative destruction for companies like GM & the banks has to realize that the short-term on that would have been much, much tougher, the the recovery more delayed. The only argument to make there is that it's better in the long-term.
 
It is amusing how Mott continues to pretend to be a "moderate," as though being a left-winger under the "moderate" banner somehow makes his beliefs more mainstream. Frankly, I cannot recall a single issue on which Mott has been anything other than extreme left.

Then again, I suppose he would be considered a moderate in some parts of the world... like Cuba and North Korea.
 
Topspin said:
GDP is positive and will continue to grow
Jobs are now being added at a clip of over 200,000
Economic output is about to surpass it's all time high
Click to expand...

Yes, GDP is positive, but weak and getting weaker.... when you have very slow growth coupled with inflation you get stagflation. Which is not a good thing toppy.

Jobs need to be added at a clip of 350k or higher to make a dent in the unemployment rate.
 
Topspin said:
I haven't seen 1 economist say the stimulus delayed the recovery, just a student.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, most any Classical economist, Chicago School and ALL Austrian economist always say Keynesian fiscal policy does not help and indeed delays recovery. They have repeated the warnigs through all this.

Go smoke some pot and leave the adult conversations to the grown ups fraud.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, GDP is positive, but weak and getting weaker.... when you have very slow growth coupled with inflation you get stagflation. Which is not a good thing toppy.

Jobs need to be added at a clip of 350k or higher to make a dent in the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

I agree that we're still firmly in the woods for the most part, but prospects on the employment front are looking better with each passing month. A report out just today shows the highest # of job openings since before the crash, and plans for new hires in this quarter & the next are very encouraging.
 
Topspin said:
Obama's bin laden bubble will burst faster than most think.

But, as I have said to the economic illiterate from day 1. He slow rolled out the stimulus in part as a design to have the economy humming in 12 vs a fast 09 & 10 and slowing down 12.
Click to expand...

Could be...I don't know if any politician can be that good. Alls I know is that Obama is light years ahead of his predecessor in competence....but that isn't probably saying very much. He has met my criteria to be considered for re-election. He killed bin Ladin.
 
Onceler said:
You're way overplaying the impact of the stimulus. The stimulus did basically one thing - stopped the freefall and turned the tide. If the admin tried to "time" spending for some sort of re-election effort, they'd be woefully stupid economically...
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you on that.
 
Onceler said:
=but anyone who advocated creative destruction for companies like GM & the banks has to realize that the short-term on that would have been much, much tougher, the the recovery more delayed. The only argument to make there is that it's better in the long-term.
Click to expand...

In the very short term things could have been worse, much like when Volker raised interest rates so high to rid inflation in the 80's. It made the economy worse in the short term and people claimed he was wrong. Of course doing the right thing helped pave the way to long term success.

Anyway, I'm busy at work now and the same 10 people are still here with the same opinions so have at it.

Also to the original topic, Obama will win no doubt.
 
Superfreak said:
So you start ANOTHER thread on this rather than simply continue the conversation on the other thread? Once again, you are wrong.... and I will take your bet.... $100 he doesn't surpass the 7.2% margin of victory he saw in 2008.



That is nice. The majority of this country is NOT impressed with his job performance on the economy.



LMAO.... that banking/financial crisis was a direct result of the bipartisan repeal of Glass Steagall. I know you idiots like to dump all the blame on Bush (and he certainly deserves a chunk of it), but in reality a good portion of the responsibility goes to the President and Congress in 1999. Without that action, the financial crisis would not have happened. As for the two wars, how about the THREE we are now in?



Please detail these 'tough decisions' for us. Are you referring to his 'printing money for my favorite voting blocks' strategy'???



I have never met a politician that found it 'tough' to spend money. But again, do detail what you think was tough for him to do.



LMAO... the auto bailout began under BUSH. Obama extended it and did so in a way that fucked over all shareholders EXCEPT his union buddies. Also, we are not even close to having all the money paid back by Government Motors.



ROFLMAO.... you mean the war that was ALREADY winding down due to the surge that Obama opposed and the Sunni uprising against Al Queda? Tell us, what did Obama do other than the obvious course of action?



ROFLAMO.... oh please... DO explain how EXPANDING the war in Afghanistan is equivalent to 'beginning to wind down the war'



This monstrosity was designed to make sure that the bulk of the COSTS did not hit until after 2012. If it was going to be so effective WHY did he push off the bulk of the 'benefits' until AFTER the election of 2012? This monstrosity will do NOTHING to lower costs of health care and will instead simply increase the amount of bureaucracy involved. As for how great it is.... if it is so super special... why is his admin granting so many 'exemptions' to his favorite voting blocks????



On this he did exactly what needed to be done and I applaud him for it.



Thus far, Obama has proved competent in very little. Our economy is a mess and it is getting worse again with unemployment continuing at rates that are far worse than Obama said would occur with his stimulus package. Fannie and Freddie are hemorrhaging again and foreclosures are expected to continue rising. BAC is also teetering once again. The 'financial reform' did NOTHING to stop the same problems from reoccurring.

Obama is most certainly vulnerable. No way does the 'feel good' poll bumps from Osama carry into 2012 with the economy the way it is.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...boy you social science junior college boys have a hard time with math don't you? Obama won the popular vote by 6%.
 
Dumbasses are unemployed
GDP we will see if it's getting weaker, if it comes in under 2.5% this year he better worry

I have supreme confidence in the American Economy (not Obama's ablility to manage it) but the thousands of companies that make our economy great.
He's at 60% approval now, and while the bin laden bubble will indeed burst.
What are we left with A Nobel Prize winning non Muslim, actually born in the US, actually a solid foriegn policy guy with the largest feather possible in his cap.
Now it's early and we just lost the Rag head as the con front runner, Soon we will lose the cousin marriers favorite the Pizza King who couldn't win a measly senate race.
It's early, but when is it too late for a real republican to get into the heat of the race?
 
Topspin said:
Obama will trounce the republican douche which ever clown they decide to make the sacraficial lamb.
Republican morons will turn their economics understand on it's head to bash Obama.

Not one of the ass clowns looks as formidable as Bob Dole.
Cain the Pizza clown who lost a senate race in Ga, Really!
Click to expand...
LOL Time will certainly tell Topper, if the economic trend continues to improve, much as the right wants to play it other wise, then Obama's polling #'s will continue where there at or improve. Either way it spells trouble for Repelicans and Repelicans have yet to find a viable candidate.

I mean Dixie does have a valid point. If Romney couldn't beat McCain in 08 then what makes them think he would do better then McCain against Obama and Romney is the tentative front runner at this stage of the game.
 
Topspin said:
Dumbasses are unemployed
GDP we will see if it's getting weaker, if it comes in under 2.5% this year he better worry

I have supreme confidence in the American Economy (not Obama's ablility to manage it) but the thousands of companies that make our economy great.
He's at 60% approval now, and while the bin laden bubble will indeed burst.
What are we left with A Nobel Prize winning non Muslim, actually born in the US, actually a solid foriegn policy guy with the largest feather possible in his cap.
Now it's early and we just lost the Rag head as the con front runner, Soon we will lose the cousin marriers favorite the Pizza King who couldn't win a measly senate race.
It's early, but when is it too late for a real republican to get into the heat of the race?
Click to expand...
I have a sneaky hunch that may not happen until 2016. We'll see....it's still early and a lot can happen between no and then that can change the political calculus. The odds for Obama right now are looking good. I wonder what the Vegas line is?
 
OBL is going to be bigger in the campaign than people think. It basically takes "Dems soft on terror" out of the GOP playbook.

They're essentially in a position where they just have to hope the economy isn't doing better by then, as has been stated.
 
St. Augustine said:
So what you're saying is, even if gasoline is $6/gallon and the economy is in shambles, you'll still vote for the clown because he did what any other President would have done.

Got it.
Click to expand...
Well the that's a strawman. The economy is not in shambles. Most of the unemployed are unskilled workers. The college educated and the skilled workers are doing quite well and gasoline is not at $6/gallon. If it's that way in 2012, yes, Obama will have a problem. If it's not, the Republican contendor will have an uphill struggle for sure.
 
Onceler said:
OBL is going to be bigger in the campaign than people think. It basically takes "Dems soft on terror" out of the GOP playbook.

They're essentially in a position where they just have to hope the economy isn't doing better by then, as has been stated.
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty much true though there is a certain segment of the population that would never, ever vote for Obama because he is black. That is certainly an advantage for Repelicans for securing a base, though one would have to question if they would want them as part of their base?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top