PDA

View Full Version : GOP struggling badly with public attitudes



Cigar
12-13-2012, 09:35 AM
http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen77AF009A-7296-B9E0-8215-9DAC856E6A6D.jpg

The latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released late yesterday, includes quite a bit of bad news for congressional Republicans, as they continue to resist compromising in the fiscal talks they initiated. Indeed, the poll shows the GOP on the wrong side of just about every issue.

But looking through the internals (pdf), something else jumped out at me: Republicans are really unpopular. I put together this chart pointing to favorability ratings throughout 2012 for President Obama, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party.

Note that the figures were fairly consistent throughout the year, but as 2012 draws to a close, it's the president and his party that are on the upswing, while it's the GOP that's faltering.

What's more, that's where things stand now -- it's likely attitudes towards Republicans will get worse if GOP lawmakers refuse to strike a fiscal agreement and begin 2013 by threatening to hurt Americans on purpose in a new debt-ceiling crisis.

At this point, only two groups of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party: rural Americans and white Southerners. That's it. That's not exactly a recipe for a competitive national party in the 21st century.

Wait, it gets worse.

When the poll asked respondents, "When you think about the Democratic Party what word or short phrase would you use to describe the Democratic Party?" the results were roughly split between positive and negative words, 35% to 37%. When asked, "When you think about the Republican Party what word or short phrase would you use to describe the Republican Party?" the results were one-sided -- 17% volunteered positive words, while 65% used negative words.

Among self-identified Republican voters, the most common responses when asked about their own party was "broken," "lost," and "weak."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/13/15883055-gop-struggling-badly-with-public-attitudes?liteThat's going to leave a lasting mark:laugh:

Look like that Good Old Boy Tent is shrinking fast

hanger4
12-13-2012, 09:42 AM
Ahhhhh yes clueless Maddow and NBC agenda editing news reporting.

Why anyone gives either one credibility is beyond me.

Cigar
12-13-2012, 09:47 AM
Deny Deny Deny Deny ... it's a Winning Strategy ... :grin:

Chris
12-13-2012, 09:50 AM
What's to deny? The opinion stats you show, approval just above 50%, reveal just how divisive Obama is.

Reps' lower ratings reveal dissent in the ranks between Boehner RINOs and conservatives/libertarians/tea partiers.

Cigar
12-13-2012, 09:54 AM
What's to deny? The opinion stats you show, approval just above 50%, reveal just how divisive Obama is.

Reps' lower ratings reveal dissent in the ranks between Boehner RINOs and conservatives/libertarians/tea partiers.

Looks like one is Going Down!

Chris
12-13-2012, 09:57 AM
Looks like one is Going Down!

If you go to the source poll report, you'll see that's not significant: "The margin of error for 1000 interviews among Adults is ±3.10%"

Cigar
12-13-2012, 10:23 AM
If you go to the source poll report, you'll see that's not significant: "The margin of error for 1000 interviews among Adults is ±3.10%"



I don't think there's that many Adults in the entire Republicans Party

Chris
12-13-2012, 10:26 AM
I don't think there's that many Adults in the entire Republicans Party

Nice troll. :laughing7:

Agravan
12-13-2012, 12:22 PM
I don't think there's that many Adults in the entire Republicans Party
What would you know about adults, Goober? You damned sure ain't one.

Cigar
12-13-2012, 01:24 PM
What would you know about adults, Goober? You damned sure ain't one.

You bring out the child in me ... :)

Agravan
12-13-2012, 02:45 PM
I'll bet you say that to all the real adults you meet.

Awryly
12-14-2012, 12:12 AM
http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=steve-benen77AF009A-7296-B9E0-8215-9DAC856E6A6D.jpg

The latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, released late yesterday, includes quite a bit of bad news for congressional Republicans, as they continue to resist compromising in the fiscal talks they initiated. Indeed, the poll shows the GOP on the wrong side of just about every issue.

But looking through the internals (pdf), something else jumped out at me: Republicans are really unpopular. I put together this chart pointing to favorability ratings throughout 2012 for President Obama, the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party.

Note that the figures were fairly consistent throughout the year, but as 2012 draws to a close, it's the president and his party that are on the upswing, while it's the GOP that's faltering.

What's more, that's where things stand now -- it's likely attitudes towards Republicans will get worse if GOP lawmakers refuse to strike a fiscal agreement and begin 2013 by threatening to hurt Americans on purpose in a new debt-ceiling crisis.

At this point, only two groups of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party: rural Americans and white Southerners. That's it. That's not exactly a recipe for a competitive national party in the 21st century.

Wait, it gets worse.

When the poll asked respondents, "When you think about the Democratic Party what word or short phrase would you use to describe the Democratic Party?" the results were roughly split between positive and negative words, 35% to 37%. When asked, "When you think about the Republican Party what word or short phrase would you use to describe the Republican Party?" the results were one-sided -- 17% volunteered positive words, while 65% used negative words.

Among self-identified Republican voters, the most common responses when asked about their own party was "broken," "lost," and "weak."

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/13/15883055-gop-struggling-badly-with-public-attitudes?liteThat's going to leave a lasting mark:laugh:

Look like that Good Old Boy Tent is shrinking fast

It's a conspiracy, isn't it?

Why hasn't Rasmussen and Fox News put out countervailing fictions?

Awryly
12-14-2012, 12:35 AM
Let's look at it rationally.

Who was that guy who won the Pug convention, again?

He's on the tip of my tongue. But my tongue ain't what it once was.

Awryly
12-21-2012, 12:21 AM
You bring out the child in me ... :)


Yes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Peter_H_Gilmore_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg/350px-Peter_H_Gilmore_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

zelmo1234
12-21-2012, 08:01 PM
Deny Deny Deny Deny ... it's a Winning Strategy ... :grin:

Sometime doing what is right is not popular, but isn't it sad that we have both parties and the President that either can not get half of the population to support them, or they have just a little over half???

I think that you and many other Democrats know that this fall and next year are going to be tuff for your party? What do you think all of the people that either loose their jobs, or ar moved to part time, are going to think about the policies of this President. And then you will have the millions that will loose their insurance?

Do you think that you will be able to blame the republicans for that one too?

Awryly
12-21-2012, 10:53 PM
Sometime doing what is right is not popular, but isn't it sad that we have both parties and the President that either can not get half of the population to support them, or they have just a little over half???

I think that you and many other Democrats know that this fall and next year are going to be tuff for your party? What do you think all of the people that either loose their jobs, or ar moved to part time, are going to think about the policies of this President. And then you will have the millions that will loose their insurance?

Do you think that you will be able to blame the republicans for that one too?

I see you are a fervent gulper of Republican propaganda. Do you know the Pugs are out to get you?

Though I suspect they already have.

zelmo1234
12-21-2012, 11:10 PM
I see you are a fervent gulper of Republican propaganda. Do you know the Pugs are out to get you?

Though I suspect they already have.

It is even worse than you think. I come from an Democratic family and about 13 years ago, a conservative customer took me under his wing and tought me about economics.

Now I am one of the dreaded 2% that are not paying their fair share? and back at the family ranch in liberal land. Still working paycheck to paycheck and blaming others for their palce in life. running up credit cars driving cars that they can't afford and when it all comes crashing down show up on my door to get their slice of the pie!

But Yeah! They are family, what are you going to do!

I know what I have to do in my company to keep it profitable, and I know what many other businesses are planing on too! We are all holding our for some sanity in Washington, but it does not look like it is going to happen.

Awryly
12-21-2012, 11:13 PM
It is even worse than you think. I come from an Democratic family and about 13 years ago, a conservative customer took me under his wing and tought me about economics.

Now I am one of the dreaded 2% that are not paying their fair share? and back at the family ranch in liberal land. Still working paycheck to paycheck and blaming others for their palce in life. running up credit cars driving cars that they can't afford and when it all comes crashing down show up on my door to get their slice of the pie!

But Yeah! They are family, what are you going to do!

I know what I have to do in my company to keep it profitable, and I know what many other businesses are planing on too! We are all holding our for some sanity in Washington, but it does not look like it is going to happen.


I would be surprised you had the brains to be in the bottom 2%.

zelmo1234
12-21-2012, 11:19 PM
I would be surprised you had the brains to be in the bottom 2%.

Now that does not surprise me at all, as a matter of fact I would have been disapointed with anything less out of a lib, blaming others. Although I do not know much about your country, maybe hard work and finding a product or service that people need does not pay off?

I think sheep prostitution might go over big though?

Awryly
12-21-2012, 11:24 PM
Now that does not surprise me at all, as a matter of fact I would have been disapointed with anything less out of a lib, blaming others. Although I do not know much about your country, maybe hard work and finding a product or service that people need does not pay off?

I think sheep prostitution might go over big though?


I don't blame you. You could not be responsible even for the ideas that inhabit what passes for your brain.

I blame evolution.

It has a nasty habit of being right.

Our sheep send you their regards and are looking forward to making your acquaintance. Dolly especially is excited.

Assuming, that is, you get past immigration.

zelmo1234
12-21-2012, 11:40 PM
I don't blame you. You could not be responsible even for the ideas that inhabit what passes for your brain.

I blame evolution.

It has a nasty habit of being right.

Our sheep send you their regards and are looking forward to making your acquaintance. Dolly especially is excited.

Assuming, that is, you get past immigration.

Dolly! You are affering me Dolly? Just because you are a New Zealand peasant, does not mean you should give up your favorite gal

Awryly
12-21-2012, 11:57 PM
Dolly! You are affering me Dolly? Just because you are a New Zealand peasant, does not mean you should give up your favorite gal


She's a clone. We know how much you'd appreciate that.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/cloning/dolly/clone_goat.jpg

Ooops. That's a goat.

No worries.

zelmo1234
12-22-2012, 12:07 AM
She's a clone. We know how much you'd appreciate that.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/2007/cloning/dolly/clone_goat.jpg

Ooops. That's a goat.

No worries.

You have no Idea how much I needed this tonight, I laughed so hard that I am crying. Thanks.. You might be liberal, but with a sense of humor like that...... You are OK in my book

Awryly
12-22-2012, 12:08 AM
You have no Idea how much I needed this tonight, I laughed so hard that I am crying. Thanks.. You might be liberal, but with a sense of humor like that...... You are OK in my book


:grin:

GrumpyDog
12-22-2012, 05:50 AM
Look at it from the 1% perspective. They got most of the money, and soon, if not already, will own half the land and resources in America.

Now what possible reason could they have, to give a #$@^ about the lower half 47%. Hey, they don't even give a @!#% about the 47% who actually voted for them, since their latest proposal RAISES taxes on THAT 47% while giving their 1% yet ANOTHER tax break.

This crowd thinks they are invulnerable. They probably have already made plans, with their Bilderberger friends to reduce world population down to 500 000 or less. They will probably use the new biological weapon, the mutated version of Bird Flu virus,which they funded research on, increased 10 times greater, now one of the most potent biological agents known to man.

They will retreat to their private, self sustained environment, secluded, and out of reach of the other 99% and wait for the virus to take its toll. Then, they probably have decontamination procedure that will clean up the virus, if it does not dissipate on its own, after which they can get the rest of worlds resources and land, free.

Its Venture Capitalism, taken to the next level.

Awryly
12-22-2012, 06:24 AM
Look at it from the 1% perspective. They got most of the money, and soon, if not already, will own half the land and resources in America.

Now what possible reason could they have, to give a #$@^ about the lower half 47%. Hey, they don't even give a @!#% about the 47% who actually voted for them, since their latest proposal RAISES taxes on THAT 47% while giving their 1% yet ANOTHER tax break.

This crowd thinks they are invulnerable. They probably have already made plans, with their Bilderberger friends to reduce world population down to 500 000 or less. They will probably use the new biological weapon, the mutated version of Bird Flu virus,which they funded research on, increased 10 times greater, now one of the most potent biological agents known to man.

They will retreat to their private, self sustained environment, secluded, and out of reach of the other 99% and wait for the virus to take its toll. Then, they probably have decontamination procedure that will clean up the virus, if it does not dissipate on its own, after which they can get the rest of worlds resources and land, free.

Its Venture Capitalism, taken to the next level.


Bilderberger representatives spotted herding ducks.

http://www.funnycutepics.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/20120924-065053.jpg

Ducks were the first carriers of the Spanish flu. The photographer died a mysterious death.

zelmo1234
12-22-2012, 07:11 AM
Look at it from the 1% perspective. They got most of the money, and soon, if not already, will own half the land and resources in America.

Now what possible reason could they have, to give a #$@^ about the lower half 47%. Hey, they don't even give a @!#% about the 47% who actually voted for them, since their latest proposal RAISES taxes on THAT 47% while giving their 1% yet ANOTHER tax break.

Not much in favor of the Rich I see, You must be one of the millions that works for poor people???

But you are very wrong . Plan B raised taxes on those making over 1 million and one of the cuts returned deductions to Clinton levels. which would have reduced the deduction on children to 1000 dollars.

Almost everyone either kept or received more of a tax cut.

So you are going to have to go a lot further than this to prove that the wealthy don't do anything for the poor and middle class starting with the pay the vast majority of federal incometax So everyone, even the 47% that pay NO federal income tax can enjoy roads, and bridges, public tv, and the list goes on!

So I guess the President had it a little wrong when he told the business owners that they did not build it, because the 47
This crowd thinks they are invulnerable. They probably have already made plans, with their Bilderberger friends to reduce world population down to 500 000 or less. They will probably use the new biological weapon, the mutated version of Bird Flu virus,which they funded research on, increased 10 times greater, now one of the most potent biological agents known to man.

They will retreat to their private, self sustained environment, secluded, and out of reach of the other 99% and wait for the virus to take its toll. Then, they probably have decontamination procedure that will clean up the virus, if it does not dissipate on its own, after which they can get the rest of worlds resources and land, free.

Its Venture Capitalism, taken to the next level.

Oh you found us out. We are buying up the world to make huge profits selling in back to the poor on one hand, and then not according to you we are going to kill off the poor to have no one left to sell it too????

Makes you wonder how we were smart enough to cheat all the poor and middle class out of their money in the first place?

And I am sure that all of the charitable donations that help the under privilaged is just another ploy to gain their trust.

If you want to see a body that would be capable of your above post look to the UN

Mainecoons
12-22-2012, 08:02 AM
I dunno, but the one percent has done very well under Barry. I suspect they knew this since they spent a lot of money to get him re-elected. He's pumped up the stock market for them and covered up and paid off their bank fraud with printed money. He was a good investment. This is why they are the one percent, they know where to put their money.

GrumpyDog
12-22-2012, 08:08 AM
Oh you found us out. We are buying up the world to make huge profits selling in back to the poor on one hand, and then not according to you we are going to kill off the poor to have no one left to sell it too????

Makes you wonder how we were smart enough to cheat all the poor and middle class out of their money in the first place?

And I am sure that all of the charitable donations that help the under privilaged is just another ploy to gain their trust.

If you want to see a body that would be capable of your above post look to the UN


Zelmo.... (half awake elmo?).. you mixed up Grumpydog statements with your own. You know how to separate out parts using word "quote" inside [] and [/]?

Chris
12-22-2012, 08:08 AM
I dunno, but the one percent has done very well under Barry. I suspect they knew this since they spent a lot of money to get him re-elected. He's pumped up the stock market for them and covered up and paid off their bank fraud with printed money. He was a good investment. This is why they are the one percent, they know where to put their money.

Let's add bank and auto and more bailouts. And Solyndra and other crony capitalism. And much more.

Gadflies like cigar got him pegged wrong.

Awryly
12-29-2012, 01:13 AM
I dunno, but the one percent has done very well under Barry. I suspect they knew this since they spent a lot of money to get him re-elected. He's pumped up the stock market for them and covered up and paid off their bank fraud with printed money. He was a good investment. This is why they are the one percent, they know where to put their money.

Of course they have. Rolling in it.:pointlaugh::pointlaugh:

Let's see how they like higher taxes. :toothy1::toothy1::toothy1:

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 06:46 AM
Of course they have. Rolling in it.:pointlaugh::pointlaugh:

Let's see how they like higher taxes. :toothy1::toothy1::toothy1:

You really think that the rich are going to pay those taxes??? don't you?

Funny they never have before, they will pass it down or, in business like mine where I can not pass it down, shelter profits by off shoring them.

And of course this, as your country has figured out, will bring economic growth to a stand still making wages go down even more, and will bring another round of forclosures, and deflation of the realestate market, which I will be ready with a fist full of cash to by their homes for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar and rent them back to them, and eventually when taxation and regulation are brought back under control sell them back to them, after Obama has destroyed the wealth of the middle class.

You see the rich get richer during recessions becasue it is a fire sale, the poor and middle class do well in times of economic growth, because of supply and demand.

Here is an example when thigs we really bad in 2009 for the construction industry, I coudl hire a contractor crew of 4 for about 30 dollars an hour, that is minimum wage. or just above, as things improve, my average cost has risen to about 45 dollars an hour for the ame crew. Better but we are still in slow growth.

Back in 2005 and 2006 when the economy was smoking hot, I was at a cost of about 200 dollars an hour for a construction crew

The higher taxes are a joke, and if he raises capital gains people will exit the stock market, plus with his new clasification of rent as capital gains the poor and middle class will see a jump in rent of about 15%

There are a lot of people that really want to see the rich pay more in taxes, in the words of AW we will see how they like the results. people are in business to make money, not pay taxes and break even. It is going to be a bumpy road for the poor and middle class that thought Obama was looking out for them.

Peter1469
12-29-2012, 09:27 AM
It is all class warfare. Most dems don't understand what you wrote above. But they do understand the words "tax someone who makes more than me."

GrumpyDog
12-29-2012, 10:10 AM
It really is unfair, that GOP has such a poor image. Just because they want to protect the wealthest 2% at the expense of the 98% is no reason to believe their view of reality is not valid.

After all, the God which the GOP has absolute belief created the world in 6 days, and whose will must be done, even if women are raped, thus the child of the rapist must be born, on penalty of woman given life sentence in jail...This God, is also the one who would destroy every human on earth, except Noah (white man) and 3 wives (white, black and other), while saving every single other type of animal, insect and bacteria.

So 2%, the few, having been blessed by God, must be saved, because the other 98%, obviously not so blessed, are expendable, and righteously so.

Nemo
12-29-2012, 11:05 AM
As Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts."

Peter1469
12-29-2012, 02:51 PM
The government should try to maximize the taxes that it legitimately needs. Some people think that raising taxes on the rich will get them there; history shows that this brings in less tax revenue. Oops. What do they call it when you fail, but try the same thing over and over? :huh:

Awryly
12-29-2012, 07:08 PM
You really think that the rich are going to pay those taxes??? don't you?

Funny they never have before, they will pass it down or, in business like mine where I can not pass it down, shelter profits by off shoring them.

And of course this, as your country has figured out, will bring economic growth to a stand still making wages go down even more, and will bring another round of forclosures, and deflation of the realestate market, which I will be ready with a fist full of cash to by their homes for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar and rent them back to them, and eventually when taxation and regulation are brought back under control sell them back to them, after Obama has destroyed the wealth of the middle class.

You see the rich get richer during recessions becasue it is a fire sale, the poor and middle class do well in times of economic growth, because of supply and demand.

Here is an example when thigs we really bad in 2009 for the construction industry, I coudl hire a contractor crew of 4 for about 30 dollars an hour, that is minimum wage. or just above, as things improve, my average cost has risen to about 45 dollars an hour for the ame crew. Better but we are still in slow growth.

Back in 2005 and 2006 when the economy was smoking hot, I was at a cost of about 200 dollars an hour for a construction crew

The higher taxes are a joke, and if he raises capital gains people will exit the stock market, plus with his new clasification of rent as capital gains the poor and middle class will see a jump in rent of about 15%

There are a lot of people that really want to see the rich pay more in taxes, in the words of AW we will see how they like the results. people are in business to make money, not pay taxes and break even. It is going to be a bumpy road for the poor and middle class that thought Obama was looking out for them.


Oh dear. You assume a recession, which may or may happen.

Tax increases on the rich will be something they will just have to suck up if there are no tax cuts on the middle and lower classes.

Why? It's a little free markety thing (you say you love the free market but you have just demonstrated how vividly you don't) - called competition.

If Obama adds to the tax increase, penalties on the movement of labour and cash offshore, whatcha gonna do then? There are signs he will do that.

And a few percentage points added to the capital gains tax will not influence investment decisions to any great degree.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-08/obama-victory-leads-wealthy-to-make-quick-pre-2013-moves

Especially if he blocks tax avoidance at the same time.

Of course, I am not talking about Goldman Sachs, which will just invent more dodgy products to sell to unsuspecting buyers. I am talking about what is left of the open American market. Which, as we all know, is far more closed than ours.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 10:29 PM
It really is unfair, that GOP has such a poor image. Just because they want to protect the wealthest 2% at the expense of the 98% is no reason to believe their view of reality is not valid.

After all, the God which the GOP has absolute belief created the world in 6 days, and whose will must be done, even if women are raped, thus the child of the rapist must be born, on penalty of woman given life sentence in jail...This God, is also the one who would destroy every human on earth, except Noah (white man) and 3 wives (white, black and other), while saving every single other type of animal, insect and bacteria.

So 2%, the few, having been blessed by God, must be saved, because the other 98%, obviously not so blessed, are expendable, and righteously so.

So I do not pay my fiar share of taxes???? So what is my fair share, I am a top 2% income earner, and the top 2% currently pay 39.6% of all federal income taxes that are paid? So pleae tell me what is the correct percentage for someone making over 250K per year???

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/cbo-report-confirms-rich-already-pay-their-fair-share/

next just how much revenue did the Bush tax cuts cost the government?? Obama and the Democrats would ahve you beleive that it cost 1.2 trillion over 10 Years? If this is the case why did revenue go up so dramatically?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

And taxing the top 2% more like president obama wants to would make a real difference right. Well lets assume that not one rich person will change anything that they wer going to do for the next year, when their taxes go up? How much would that reduce the deficite?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Obama-Tax-Hike-On-Rich-Will-Fund-Govt-For-8-Days

8 hole days, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the government is spending and it would make a difference of 8 days.

Now lest talk about your attack on Children. You see republicans would like the issue of abortion to be returned to the states, and have offered on more than one occasion to extend the life of the mother, rape and incest if there were to be punishments for abortionist that broke ther rules.

Democrats want no restrictions but claim life of the mother and rape and incest??? so just how many abortions would that be?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Percentage_of_abortions_due_to_rape_incest_or_dang er_to_the_mothers_life

820151 children killed in american. makes these shooters in the mass killings look like saints. does in not??

So I will give you the 4% of these that are for rape, incest and life or health of the mother, which is 32807 and you give me the 787344 that are done for birth control and I will take a charge of manslaughter for doctors that lie about the reason for abortion? how does that sound.

You see class warfare is going to cost the poor and the middle class, but Obama does not really care as long as the uneducated voter think that he stuck it to the rich.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 10:39 PM
Oh dear. You assume a recession, which may or may happen.

Tax increases on the rich will be something they will just have to suck up if there are no tax cuts on the middle and lower classes.

Why? It's a little free markety thing (you say you love the free market but you have just demonstrated how vividly you don't) - called competition.

If Obama adds to the tax increase, penalties on the movement of labour and cash offshore, whatcha gonna do then? There are signs he will do that.

And a few percentage points added to the capital gains tax will not influence investment decisions to any great degree.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-08/obama-victory-leads-wealthy-to-make-quick-pre-2013-moves

Especially if he blocks tax avoidance at the same time.

Of course, I am not talking about Goldman Sachs, which will just invent more dodgy products to sell to unsuspecting buyers. I am talking about what is left of the open American market. Which, as we all know, is far more closed than ours.

Well I do love the free market? Taxation as you have said many times, in your country is low, and this is the reason for growth.

So If obama and the democrats found a way to stop the off shoring of money, which he will not because his largest supporters like GE use this to pay No federal income tax in the US. But for the sake of arguement what would I do if he pull this off< it is very simple, I will not run abusiness and loose money, I would close it down. evict the 100+ families that live in my apartments and homes and live off what I have made. And pay NO federal income tax. And I will be fine.

And the few points in capital gains that you are talking about, with the new premium Obamacare tax is from 15% the current rate, to 43.6% the top rate if Obama gets his way.

Now the competition that I have is not frm other developers, but it is because people can only afford to pay so much for someplace to live? For example I rent most of my apartments for 600 to 700 a month, and my home for 800 to 1000. I can not riase my rents 28.6% tp off set the tax increases. people just could not afford to pay that much. but I can off shore profits to avoid the new taxes?

So tell me AW what is the way to go, the low taxes and decreases in taxation that your country is using to stimulate the economy, or the tax increase that France, England, Greece and Spain are using that are causing there country's to go bankrupt?

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 10:41 PM
As Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount: "Blessed are the rich, for they shall receive tax cuts."

I heard it a little different blessed are the rich for they shale employ the majority of the people?

Awryly
12-29-2012, 10:46 PM
So I do not pay my fiar share of taxes???? So what is my fair share, I am a top 2% income earner, and the top 2% currently pay 39.6% of all federal income taxes that are paid? So pleae tell me what is the correct percentage for someone making over 250K per year???

That will be decided by your president.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/cbo-report-confirms-rich-already-pay-their-fair-share/


next just how much revenue did the Bush tax cuts cost the government?? Obama and the Democrats would ahve you beleive that it cost 1.2 trillion over 10 Years? If this is the case why did revenue go up so dramatically?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/

One must believe the informed authorities.


And taxing the top 2% more like president obama wants to would make a real difference right. Well lets assume that not one rich person will change anything that they wer going to do for the next year, when their taxes go up? How much would that reduce the deficite?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Obama-Tax-Hike-On-Rich-Will-Fund-Govt-For-8-Days

8 hole days, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the government is spending and it would make a difference of 8 days.

I see you reference a site sympathetic to your obnoxious cause. And don't forget the loopholes and penalties on foreign dodgy dealings. Of course, there will also be handsome cuts to your military. Which is not before time.


Now lest talk about your attack on Children. You see republicans would like the issue of abortion to be returned to the states, and have offered on more than one occasion to extend the life of the mother, rape and incest if there were to be punishments for abortionist that broke ther rules.

Democrats want no restrictions but claim life of the mother and rape and incest??? so just how many abortions would that be?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Percentage_of_abortions_due_to_rape_incest_or_dang er_to_the_mothers_life

820151 children killed in american. makes these shooters in the mass killings look like saints. does in not??

So I will give you the 4% of these that are for rape, incest and life or health of the mother, which is 32807 and you give me the 787344 that are done for birth control and I will take a charge of manslaughter for doctors that lie about the reason for abortion? how does that sound.

"Lest". Or even "Let's". Wot attack on children? I made none such.


You see class warfare is going to cost the poor and the middle class, but Obama does not really care as long as the uneducated voter think that he stuck it to the rich.

So what you do to the poor is NOT class warfare already?

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:00 PM
"Lest". Or even "Let's". Wot attack on children? I made none such.



So what you do to the poor is NOT class warfare already?

First the President does not set tax rates congress does

Next I am very much in charge of my own taxation

I also posted the actual reveneu recieve by our government, I will understand if you can't count that high, neither can I So the actual revenue went up because people are investing, just like you tell us all the time works in your country??? So which one is it?

And last let me tell you about my class warfare on the poor and middle class. I have since 2009 when the policies of the democrats to sell homes to people that could not afford them went bust, been buying forclosed home. I have the cash to pay for them so I usually pay somewhere between 40 and 50 cents on the dollar.

I then rent this home back to the previous owner, so they do not have to move. We then completely renovate these home making them as energy efficient as possible, And I allow them to put some sweat equity into these rapairs. I apply a percentage of there rent toward a down payment and when they have enough they can buy the home back from me, the 3 that have gotten to this point, owe about355 less than they did when they lost there homes and now they have homes that cost less to take care of and pay much less in utilities.

So tell me how much I hate the poor and middle class again?

Awryly
12-29-2012, 11:05 PM
First the President does not set tax rates congress does

Next I am very much in charge of my own taxation

I also posted the actual reveneu recieve by our government, I will understand if you can't count that high, neither can I So the actual revenue went up because people are investing, just like you tell us all the time works in your country??? So which one is it?

And last let me tell you about my class warfare on the poor and middle class. I have since 2009 when the policies of the democrats to sell homes to people that could not afford them went bust, been buying forclosed home. I have the cash to pay for them so I usually pay somewhere between 40 and 50 cents on the dollar.

I then rent this home back to the previous owner, so they do not have to move. We then completely renovate these home making them as energy efficient as possible, And I allow them to put some sweat equity into these rapairs. I apply a percentage of there rent toward a down payment and when they have enough they can buy the home back from me, the 3 that have gotten to this point, owe about355 less than they did when they lost there homes and now they have homes that cost less to take care of and pay much less in utilities.

So tell me how much I hate the poor and middle class again?


I think you'll find your president is not just a figurehead, much as you might like to think so. He has public opinion (the 5th Estate) massively on his side.

You don't.

The rest of your post is principally illiterate rubbish. But through its miasma emerges the revelation that you are just another small-time crook.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:08 PM
I think you'll find your president is not just a figurehead, much as you might like to think so. He has public opinion (the 5th Estate) massively on his side.

You don't.

The rest of your post is principally illiterate rubbish. But through its miasma emerges the revelation that you are just another small-time crook.

please do tell how I am stealing from people??????

And you are right I am small time! compared to the people that really have the ability to get this economy rolling, but they have the heavy hand of the government on there sholders too

Awryly
12-29-2012, 11:21 PM
please do tell how I am stealing from people??????

And you are right I am small time! compared to the people that really have the ability to get this economy rolling, but they have the heavy hand of the government on there sholders too

Stay small time. It suits you.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:23 PM
Stay small time. It suits you.

It does I can help people, still I want to knwo how I am a thief?

Awryly
12-29-2012, 11:39 PM
It does I can help people, still I want to knwo how I am a thief?

Dunno. Do you steal stuff?

And stop trying to seek absolution. I can't give it.

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:40 PM
Dunno. Do you steal stuff?

You accused me of it, thought I would give you a chance to state yoru case?

Awryly
12-29-2012, 11:42 PM
You accused me of it, thought I would give you a chance to state yoru case?

Where? And tell me why I would bother?

zelmo1234
12-29-2012, 11:47 PM
Where? And tell me why I would bother?

post 43 and I do not know why you would call me a crook??

Awryly
12-29-2012, 11:51 PM
You accused me of it, thought I would give you a chance to state yoru case?

Oh, I called you a crook preying on the poor. That's true. And my statement was also true. You said so yourself.


And of course this, as your country has figured out, will bring economic growth to a stand still making wages go down even more, and will bring another round of forclosures, and deflation of the realestate market, which I will be ready with a fist full of cash to by their homes for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#) and rent them back to them, and eventually when taxation and regulation are brought back under control sell them back to them, after Obama has destroyed the wealth of the middle class.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 12:05 AM
Oh, I called you a crook preying on the poor. That's true. And my statement was also true. You said so yourself.

Maybe you do not understand what I was saying, these are good hard working people that have lost their homes.

Because of the afordable housing acts of the Democrats, they had mortgages and second mortgages that were several times what the home was worth. The banks of course can't sell the homes for that, and they have so many of them, that they want to turn them into cash.

I buy them repair and renovate them, and let the origional owners find a way to purchase them at fair market value.

The end up owning about 30 to 40% less than they did not their mortgages and they have renovated homes, as most have let things go to try and make the payments.

So if allowing a family to stay in ther home, and end up owing less than they did before they lost it, is a crook, then call me a crook!

But I happen to know that you will not find one family that is still living in there home that thinks I have taken advantage of them, they think that I have helped them.

Now do I make a profit. Yes I Do, and I am not ashamed of that.

Awryly
12-30-2012, 12:12 AM
Maybe you do not understand what I was saying, these are good hard working people that have lost their homes.

Because of the afordable housing acts of the Democrats, they had mortgages and second mortgages that were several times what the home was worth. The banks of course can't sell the homes for that, and they have so many of them, that they want to turn them into cash.

I buy them repair and renovate them, and let the origional owners find a way to purchase them at fair market value.

The end up owning about 30 to 40% less than they did not their mortgages and they have renovated homes, as most have let things go to try and make the payments.

So if allowing a family to stay in ther home, and end up owing less than they did before they lost it, is a crook, then call me a crook!

But I happen to know that you will not find one family that is still living in there home that thinks I have taken advantage of them, they think that I have helped them.

Now do I make a profit. Yes I Do, and I am not ashamed of that.

I see. All those "bad" people who were sucked into the Fanny Mae/Freddie Macfraud/Bear Sterns and other frauds?

I see you never sniff at an opportunity to prey on the weak.

You have made that perfectly clear.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 12:19 AM
I see. All those "bad" people who were sucked into the Fanny Mae/Freddie Macfraud/Bear Sterns and other frauds?

I see you never sniff at an opportunity to prey on the weak.

You have made that perfectly clear.

So I should just let the banks kick them out of there homes. and put them on the streets.. You are right, if I was a liberal that would be much more compasionate that helping people that have already lost their homes keep them and find a way to purchase them with apayment that they can afford.

they are not allowed by law to purchase these homes! and most have spent every dime that they have trying to keep these homes. They are broke!

I see your compassion kick them out on the streets and let them find a place to live.... Yes much better!

roadmaster
12-30-2012, 01:00 AM
Well it's the truth, they think they signed one only to get another rate sold from the first company that financed them.

Awryly
12-30-2012, 07:45 AM
Well it's the truth, they think they signed one only to get another rate sold from the first company that financed them.

Hope is such a devastating lie.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 07:48 AM
Still waiting for an answer AW should I stop buying forclosed homes and let the banks put the people out on the streets.

I need to find some of that liberal compassion

Chris
12-30-2012, 10:57 AM
you are just another small-time crook....Oh, I called you a crook preying on the poor. That's true. And my statement was also true. You said so yourself.

And this is what you claim your accusation is based on:


And of course this, as your country has figured out, will bring economic growth to a stand still making wages go down even more, and will bring another round of forclosures, and deflation of the realestate market, which I will be ready with a fist full of cash to by their homes for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar and rent them back to them, and eventually when taxation and regulation are brought back under control sell them back to them, after Obama has destroyed the wealth of the middle class.

I join zelmo is requesting that you defend and substantiate your accusation. His words do not do that, they can be used as facts, that's what he said. But it is up to you to explain the logical connection between his words and your accusation.

dictionary.com defines crook as "a dishonest person, especially a sharper, swindler, or thief."

How does his buying and renting and selling imply he is a crook?

Frankly, awryly, I think you've stuck your foot in your mouth again.

GrumpyDog
12-30-2012, 01:51 PM
There is some point in the profit curve, where it is perceived to be crooked. And the percentage is different, depending on what is being sold.

For some reason, people will pay $ 3 dollars for a loaf of bread at one location, rather than ride a bike or walk about 1 mile, where they can buy the same loaf for $1 dollar. They will complain, but they will not necessarily call the seller a crook.

So there is a "threshold" in the practice of Capitalism, which is an approximation of what peoples expectations are, of what is considered to be "reasonable" profit, and if that is exceeded, the perception starts to gravitate towards the seller being a "crook".

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 01:56 PM
There is some point in the profit curve, where it is perceived to be crooked. And the percentage is different, depending on what is being sold.

For some reason, people will pay $ 3 dollars for a loaf of bread at one location, rather than ride a bike or walk about 1 mile, where they can buy the same loaf for $1 dollar. They will complain, but they will not necessarily call the seller a crook.

So there is a "threshold" in the practice of Capitalism, which is an approximation of what peoples expectations are, of what is considered to be "reasonable" profit, and if that is exceeded, the perception starts to gravitate towards the seller being a "crook".

So if the person has borrowed 3 dollars to buy a loaf of bread, and can not pay it back, and I buy the loaf of bread for 60 cents and sell it bak to the person for a dollar is that being a crook???

Now they have the loaf of bread, and they only owe a dollar for it??? IF that is a crook, then sign me up

Chris
12-30-2012, 05:18 PM
There is some point in the profit curve, where it is perceived to be crooked. And the percentage is different, depending on what is being sold.

For some reason, people will pay $ 3 dollars for a loaf of bread at one location, rather than ride a bike or walk about 1 mile, where they can buy the same loaf for $1 dollar. They will complain, but they will not necessarily call the seller a crook.

So there is a "threshold" in the practice of Capitalism, which is an approximation of what peoples expectations are, of what is considered to be "reasonable" profit, and if that is exceeded, the perception starts to gravitate towards the seller being a "crook".


There is some point in the profit curve, where it is perceived to be crooked.

Not under a free market system for there each party by subjective valuation chooses to exchange. This is your milk example.

Under a socialist system, or if you prefer social democracy, or even if called crony capitalism, sure, because government can coerce the public with favors to business in exchange for business keeping its campaign coffers filled. Here we can look to government milk subsidies.

But in general all you're saying is it is a completely subjective opinion to call profit crooked, which is saying little if anything.

Awryly
12-30-2012, 06:41 PM
Still waiting for an answer AW should I stop buying forclosed homes and let the banks put the people out on the streets.

I need to find some of that liberal compassion


All depends on the circumstances. I know morality is usually the loser in business. But there are degrees to which morality is lost.

We all know tens, probably hundreds of thousands of people got sucked into mortgages sold aggressively and often even criminally by banks and other institutions. That is not your problem.

If you are just buying houses at the going rate, dressing them up, and reselling them, there is no issue. Depending on the tactics you use to buy them. That's just business.

But I am sure there are some who heavy distressed sellers into parting with their homes at absurdly low prices. That is immoral.

The housing and mortgage market has been rightly rogered by your financial institutions. From a societal standpoint, I prefer the approach of organisations such as Strike Back coupled the mortgage relief measures introduced by Obama. If the banks have been bailed out, who should underwater home owners not get relief as well?

I'm sure many builders see the opportunities in the disaster the financial institutions created. Some will negotiate fairly; others will operate like Romney does.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 10:06 PM
I
All depends on the circumstances. I know morality is usually the loser in business. But there are degrees to which morality is lost.

We all know tens, probably hundreds of thousands of people got sucked into mortgages sold aggressively and often even criminally by banks and other institutions. That is not your problem.

If you are just buying houses at the going rate, dressing them up, and reselling them, there is no issue. Depending on the tactics you use to buy them. That's just business.

But I am sure there are some who heavy distressed sellers into parting with their homes at absurdly low prices. That is immoral.

The housing and mortgage market has been rightly rogered by your financial institutions. From a societal standpoint, I prefer the approach of organisations such as Strike Back coupled the mortgage relief measures introduced by Obama. If the banks have been bailed out, who should underwater home owners not get relief as well?

I'm sure many builders see the opportunities in the disaster the financial institutions created. Some will negotiate fairly; others will operate like Romney does.

AW I do not buy and homes from the owners, I buy them from the bank, if I were to buy them from the owner, they would be responsible for the balance between what I pay and the balance on the mortgage.

But you are under a conplete false assumption of what caused the housing collapse. Back in the late 70's president Carter passed the equity in housing act to try and get more homes sold to low income families. But the program had not teeth.

President Clinton forced banks to carry 13% of there mortgage profolio to people that really had no business trying to buy the home. Also becasue the housing market was on a long increase, mortgage backed securities

Clinton did not make the mistake of the program having no teeth, if the banks did not keep there ratios correct, they were not allowed access to federal bank loans and fund transfers.

To Keep these in line, they started loaning more to getthe loans current, let the consumer pay a few payments and sell them as a current mortgage

Yes the banks were at fault, but so were the borrowers that had no business trying to buy a home.

GWB actually asked on several occasions ti have fannie and freddie looked into, but was called racist and told that everything was OK

Awryly
12-30-2012, 10:49 PM
I

AW I do not buy and homes from the owners, I buy them from the bank, if I were to buy them from the owner, they would be responsible for the balance between what I pay and the balance on the mortgage.

But you are under a conplete false assumption of what caused the housing collapse. Back in the late 70's president Carter passed the equity in housing act to try and get more homes sold to low income families. But the program had not teeth.

President Clinton forced banks to carry 13% of there mortgage profolio to people that really had no business trying to buy the home. Also becasue the housing market was on a long increase, mortgage backed securities

Clinton did not make the mistake of the program having no teeth, if the banks did not keep there ratios correct, they were not allowed access to federal bank loans and fund transfers.

To Keep these in line, they started loaning more to getthe loans current, let the consumer pay a few payments and sell them as a current mortgage

Yes the banks were at fault, but so were the borrowers that had no business trying to buy a home.

GWB actually asked on several occasions ti have fannie and freddie looked into, but was called racist and told that everything was OK

Yeah. Right.


ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC STORIES from the New Testament is of the time that Jesus encountered money changers in the temple. Enraged by their usury and sacrilege, he went on a tear--overturning their tables, physically driving them out, and chastising them for converting the temple into a "den of robbers." The Bible doesn't say where these bloodsucking lenders went, but now we know: They have re-emerged in recent years to set up their tables right here in America, working a dark alley of homeowner financing called the "subprime mortgage market." The what? Don't be deterred by the finance industry's jargon (which is intended to numb your brain and keep regular folks from even trying to figure out what's going on). At its core, this is a classically simple story of banker greed and outright sleaze. And the astonishing part is that nearly all of the rank injustice perpetrated by today's money changers is considered legal and is practiced by supposedly reputable financial firms.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 10:54 PM
Yeah. Right.

You are very funny to me, On one hand you talk about all of the things that Your government does to be sure that New Zealand is solvent and secure!

About low taxation, and regulation, how they get so much business from the FTA's and they keep there spendng under control

All are very conservative values.

But you worship the left in our country, and the policies that are just the opposite of what your country is doing, and of course we know how well all of those policies are working for our economy.

Awryly
12-30-2012, 11:02 PM
You are very funny to me, On one hand you talk about all of the things that Your government does to be sure that New Zealand is solvent and secure!

About low taxation, and regulation, how they get so much business from the FTA's and they keep there spendng under control

All are very conservative values.

But you worship the left in our country, and the policies that are just the opposite of what your country is doing, and of course we know how well all of those policies are working for our economy.


I can only conclude from that that you don't have the foggiest idea what my country is doing.

zelmo1234
12-30-2012, 11:09 PM
I can only conclude from that that you don't have the foggiest idea what my country is doing.

Just what you have posted, and I have checked, you even said that you thought the liberals wee going to take over and spend more

So which one is it are they doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Awryly
12-30-2012, 11:13 PM
Just what you have posted, and I have checked, you even said that you thought the liberals wee going to take over and spend more

So which one is it are they doing the right thing or the wrong thing?

Explain.

In English.

If possible.

Left and right are both fiscally responsible here. The left more than the right.

Awryly
01-04-2013, 11:33 PM
The image of Republicans is looking gloomier and gloomier.

Lost on the tax rise, lost on immigration, losing on guns.

And the best they can come up with is voting against budget continuation and raising the debt ceiling that cover the debts that keep accruing from Bush's policies.

Carolling all the while "Spending cuts! Spending cuts! And more spending cuts!" When 4 years ago they were screaming "Bailout! Bailout! Bailout!" that got them where they are today.

Reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "And thick and fast they came at last, and more and more and more."

Peter1469
01-05-2013, 12:19 AM
The image of Republicans is looking gloomier and gloomier.

Lost on the tax rise, lost on immigration, losing on guns.

And the best they can come up with is voting against budget continuation and raising the debt ceiling that cover the debts that keep accruing from Bush's policies.

Carolling all the while "Spending cuts! Spending cuts! And more spending cuts!" When 4 years ago they were screaming "Bailout! Bailout! Bailout!" that got them where they are today.

Reminds me of Alice in Wonderland: "And thick and fast they came at last, and more and more and more."

Obama has created 1/3rd of the entire official US debt. By the end of his 8 years he will have created almost 50% of it. At some point people are going to have to stop blaming the debt on Bush. :wink:

Awryly
01-05-2013, 12:44 AM
Obama has created 1/3rd of the entire official US debt. By the end of his 8 years he will have created almost 50% of it. At some point people are going to have to stop blaming the debt on Bush. :wink:

Obama is still spending on Bush policies.


FY 2012 Discretionary Spending:Just over a third of spending, or $1.319 trillion, went toward Discretionary programs (http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm). This is significantly lower than in prior years, when around 40% of the budget was discretionary. That's important, because that's the only portion of the budget that the President and Congress can negotiate each year. Only a third of that ($450 billion) was spent on all Federal government activities not related to defense. The largest non-security related departments were: Health and Human Services ($78.3 billion), Education ($67.4 billion), Housing and Urban Development ($38.2 billion), Justice ($26.8 billion), and Agriculture ($22 billion).

He has inherited massive mandatory spending, including the war in Afghanistan, the so-called War on Terror, the unfunded Pharma benefits.


Half of the Discretionary budget, or $868 billion, was approved for military spending. This was less than the $895 billion requested in the FY 2012 budget. However, it was more than the $838 billion spent in FY 2011, the $855 billion in FY 2010, and the $782 billion in FY 2009.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/US-Government-Federal-Budget-FY2012-Summary.htm

Peter1469
01-05-2013, 01:31 AM
All of that could have been changed with a new budget. Never in the history of the US have we not had a budget for a significant period of time. Obama has never had one. Unique.

Awryly
01-05-2013, 01:46 AM
All of that could have been changed with a new budget. Never in the history of the US have we not had a budget for a significant period of time. Obama has never had one. Unique.

For the last 2 years, he has been up against a uniquely intransigent Congress. Before that he was busy with other stuff and also had the problem of blue dog Democrats.

2014 may see some progress.

Peter1469
01-05-2013, 02:33 AM
For the last 2 years, he has been up against a uniquely intransigent Congress. Before that he was busy with other stuff and also had the problem of blue dog Democrats.

2014 may see some progress.

Life sucks. At this point, blaming Bush is disingenuous. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, and never complained for blamed Clinton. He owned it from day one.

Awryly
01-05-2013, 02:54 AM
Life sucks. At this point, blaming Bush is disingenuous. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton, and never complained for blamed Clinton. He owned it from day one.


Clinton left office with the economy in good shape. And with a budget surplus.

Bush, on the other hand, introduced absurd tax cuts, launched unfunded programmes, started 2 wars, and deregulated the financial markets - which the went berserk - and crashed.


The Congressional Budget Office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office) reported a budget surplus between the years 1998 and 2000, the last three years of Clinton's presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

zelmo1234
01-05-2013, 03:54 AM
Clinton left office with the economy in good shape. And with a budget surplus.

Bush, on the other hand, introduced absurd tax cuts, launched unfunded programmes, started 2 wars, and deregulated the financial markets - which the went berserk - and crashed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

I see you know as much about our country as you do about ours? but I guess being a Subject give you and excuse to not think freely?

So lets start with the reason that VP Gore, Clintons VP you know the one that just sold his TV station to a terrorist organization? Why did he loose the election to GWB

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-80312

Now I know that you will accuse CNN of being a moth piece for the republican party right????

Now remember that Bush was responsible, we are told for the first year of President Obamas deficites. Actually I beleive that you have made the case that he is responsible for all 4 years of Obamas deficites, even though the worst deficite year he had was less than half of Obamas best year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

So it appears that even if you give GWB all of 2009 spending he is far below that of Obama, and Obama had a congress that could not be stopped by the republicans for 2 years, they could do nothing, if he want to cut spending, and remember he promised to cut the deficites in half in his first term, so he told the american people that he did, he had no opposition, he could have raised taxes? or cut spending on the military, brought each and every troop home from the ars, anything, there was no republican that had the power to stop him.

So how much did the Bush Tax cuts cost the economy??

We had the Clinton tax rate until the Bush cuts took effect in 2003, but we se that that very same year, revenues skyrocketed????

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

Now to assume that the cuts actually cost money you would ahve to assume that all of the capital investment that was made by business, would have been made anyway

Peter1469
01-05-2013, 08:25 AM
Remember the Dot Com bust? Bush inherited a recession and a seriously struck stock market. Then Worldcom happened, and then 9-11. That Bush could create the economic boom that he did (via tax cuts) was amazing.

Awryly
01-05-2013, 11:22 PM
Bush's so-called "achievements" were vastly over-rated. The tax rebates did little to stimulate the economy and tax cuts stimulated it in the wrong way. Sure, there were economic blips but he built in the seeds of the catastrophe that inevitably arrived in 2007.

He generated greed among the financial classes. He fed an endless stream of money to corporations and industries (in part through his wars) where it was not needed and neglected the real needs of education, infrastructure and energy reform.

His monetary policy was a total disaster. He stuffed the Fed with compliant Bushites and demanded they pump endless money into an unregulated market at near zero rates. Housing and credit card debt sky-rocketed. Foreclosures by the million were the inevitable result.

The man vies with Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan as the worst president the US has ever had.

Added to which he was a complete idiot. You got what you deserved. A mirage.

zelmo1234
01-06-2013, 03:15 AM
What Bush policies caused that housing Collapse again?????

I can find on seven different occasions where he tried to stop the madness by asking to audit and change fannie mae and freddie mac?

But I can only find where the democrats said everything was OK and we would be OK and that he was racist

So please help me with the policies that caused this economic trouble.

Awryly
01-06-2013, 03:22 AM
What Bush policies caused that housing Collapse again?????

I can find on seven different occasions where he tried to stop the madness by asking to audit and change fannie mae and freddie mac?

But I can only find where the democrats said everything was OK and we would be OK and that he was racist

So please help me with the policies that caused this economic trouble.
I have already told you that.

zelmo1234
01-06-2013, 03:36 AM
Yes but your assumptions were totally false.

It was the govenement and the policies of the Carter and Clinton administrations that required banks to leand to poeple that were very unlikely to be able to pay it back.

With the unpopularity of GWB it has been a handy scape goat and many uneducated voters have bought into it, but here is a little history

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Like I said liberals in our country, only judge there policies on the intended compassion of the policy, just because it does not work and dooms the poor and lower middle class to poverty for the rest of there life does not matter, as long as it was intended to be compassionate.

That is why these same policies that caused the bubble and the eventual collapse are still in place today, and if you try to change them, you, like GWB are a racist!

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 10:09 AM
Bush's so-called "achievements" were vastly over-rated. The tax rebates did little to stimulate the economy and tax cuts stimulated it in the wrong way. Sure, there were economic blips but he built in the seeds of the catastrophe that inevitably arrived in 2007.

He generated greed among the financial classes. He fed an endless stream of money to corporations and industries (in part through his wars) where it was not needed and neglected the real needs of education, infrastructure and energy reform.

His monetary policy was a total disaster. He stuffed the Fed with compliant Bushites and demanded they pump endless money into an unregulated market at near zero rates. Housing and credit card debt sky-rocketed. Foreclosures by the million were the inevitable result.

The man vies with Herbert Hoover and James Buchanan as the worst president the US has ever had.

Added to which he was a complete idiot. You got what you deserved. A mirage.

Bush's economic problems were that he didn't veto spending bills. His tax policies increased government revenue. Also the tax cuts had nothing to do with the real estate bubble or the fiscal crash. We have covered these topics over and over, yet we still have to counter these fallacies. :angry:

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 10:11 AM
Yes but your assumptions were totally false.

It was the govenement and the policies of the Carter and Clinton administrations that required banks to leand to poeple that were very unlikely to be able to pay it back.

With the unpopularity of GWB it has been a handy scape goat and many uneducated voters have bought into it, but here is a little history

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

Like I said liberals in our country, only judge there policies on the intended compassion of the policy, just because it does not work and dooms the poor and lower middle class to poverty for the rest of there life does not matter, as long as it was intended to be compassionate.

That is why these same policies that caused the bubble and the eventual collapse are still in place today, and if you try to change them, you, like GWB are a racist!

Regarding the mortgage / housing bubble: that was one part of the problem. Another part was the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low- without that, most of those bad loans never would have been made. Also artificially low interest rates push up housing prices over market value.

Chris
01-06-2013, 10:14 AM
It was the govenement and the policies of the Carter and Clinton administrations that required banks to leand to poeple that were very unlikely to be able to pay it back.

Agreed, it was a long line of politicians from FDR's creation of Fannie and Freddie onto today that caused it. Yes, bankers and lenders were greedy and are to blame, as much as those who borrowed more than they could ever repay. But it was government policies that created the incentives and promoted what led to a bubble and it's bursting.

Peter1469
01-06-2013, 11:14 AM
Agreed, it was a long line of politicians from FDR's creation of Fannie and Freddie onto today that caused it. Yes, bankers and lenders were greedy and are to blame, as much as those who borrowed more than they could ever repay. But it was government policies that created the incentives and promoted what led to a bubble and it's bursting.

Yes, and the artificially low interest rates that made these deals possible.

Awryly
01-06-2013, 06:35 PM
Bush's economic problems were that he didn't veto spending bills. His tax policies increased government revenue. Also the tax cuts had nothing to do with the real estate bubble or the fiscal crash. We have covered these topics over and over, yet we still have to counter these fallacies. :angry:

His spending policies were certainly disastrous but they combined with his deregulatory policies to produce the crash.

He spent on the wrong things, including sending billions to organisations who should never have got them, and left a legacy of decay that will take decades to fix.

zelmo1234
01-06-2013, 07:04 PM
His spending policies were certainly disastrous but they combined with his deregulatory policies to produce the crash.

He spent on the wrong things, including sending billions to organisations who should never have got them, and left a legacy of decay that will take decades to fix.


Links please????

Chris
01-06-2013, 07:07 PM
His spending policies were certainly disastrous but they combined with his deregulatory policies to produce the crash.

He spent on the wrong things, including sending billions to organisations who should never have got them, and left a legacy of decay that will take decades to fix.

Can't respond so you troll with old Obama campaign lies?


...Former President George W. Bush has been savaged by democrats for many things, including actions taken by other administrations. Bush has been blamed for the current economic problems facing Obama because of Bush’s alleged actions regarding bank deregulation, which is blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. However, two of the main democrat players tasked with banking oversight were - Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and Timothy Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Perhaps the most egregious false allegation put forth by Obama and the Democrat Party, is the assertion that Bush deregulated the financial institutions. The primary financial deregulatory acts known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (FSMA) and theCommodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) are two factors that contributed to the financial crisis. These two acts permitted the merger between commercial banks, such as Chase Bank or Bank of America, and investment banks such as JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch.

In 1997 former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, lead a campaign to prevent the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from regulating derivative markets. Ironically, in 2007 Rubin was Chairman of the Board of Citigroup which lost $50 billion because of bad subprime derivative trades.

Hence, listening to the Democrat lies emanate from the Obama 2012 re-election campaign which is denigrating capitalism, while falsely blaming deregulation has been nauseating to listen to. The lies about Bush’s deregulatory record is startling, when there is a willful continuous failure to point out that financial deregulation was completed under the democrat led Clinton Administration with the repeal of the 1930s era Glass-Steagall Act.

...Hence, contrary to Obama and the liberal Democrats revisionist historical claims, the Clinton Administration signed the legislation known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as part of the (FSMA) which effectively deregulated the financial sector, by allowing commercial and investment banks to merge. Thus, by deregulating the banking industry Clinton set the stage for the collapse of the banking industry together with the failure of global financial markets....

@ Setting the Facts Straight: Debunking the Bush Deregulation Claims (http://lionsdenmedia.hubpages.com/hub/Setting-the-Facts-Straight-Debunking-the-Bush-Deregulation-Claims)

Awryly
01-06-2013, 07:08 PM
Links please????

The refuge of the ideologue.

Read some Stiglitz, why dontcha.

zelmo1234
01-06-2013, 07:15 PM
The refuge of the ideologue.

Read some Stiglitz, why dontcha.

I am not sure how asking for you to back up statments, that I have already posted links that totally disprove you statement.

Make me an idiolog???

But if you can not back you your statemnt that I believe to be false? Might make your statment BS???

So if you are going to make a bold statement be prepared to back it up. In a debate, and lets face it, these forums are designed to debate topics, you have to back up yoru statments.

Chris
01-06-2013, 07:20 PM
The refuge of the ideologue.

Read some Stiglitz, why dontcha.

Nice try, awryly, but Stiglitz doesn't argue that, here is what he has to say:


The regulation did not cause the banks to behave badly; it was deficiencies in regulation and regulatory enforcement that failed to prevent the banks from imposing costs on the rest of society as they have repeatedly done. Indeed, the one period in American history when they have not imposed these costs was the quarter century after World War II when strong regulations were effectively enforced: it can be done.

@ Freefall: the World Economy and the Great Recession (https://www.amherst.edu/aboutamherst/magazine/bookclub/pastfeatures/josephstiglitz/excerpt)

Chris
01-06-2013, 07:22 PM
The problem was not deregulation but as Stiglitz says, regulatory failure:


A common post-crisis narrative is that banking was de-regulated in the Reagan-Greenspan era. Some pundits make it sound as if regulators behaved like parents who hand their teenagers the keys to the liquor cabinet, leave for the weekend, and say “Have a good time.” In fact, regulators believed that they had stronger regulations in place in 2005 than they did in the pre-Reagan era.

—Before 1980, mortgage loans held by banks were illiquid assets subject to considerable interest-rate risk. These problems were alleviated by the shift toward securitization.

—Before 1980, insolvent institutions were opaque because of book-value accounting. This problem was addressed with market-value accounting, enabling regulators to take more timely corrective action to address troubled institutions.

—Before 1980, banks had no formal capital requirements and there were no mechanisms in place to steer banks away from risky assets. This problem was addressed with the Basel capital accords (formally adopted in 1988), which incorporated a risk-weighted measure of assets to determine required minimum capital. In the 2000s, these risk weightings were altered to penalize banks that did not invest in highly rated, asset-backed securities.

Thus, it was not the intent of regulators to loosen the reins on banks. On the contrary, from the regulators' point of view, it was the environment prior to 1980 that amounted to leaving the teenagers with the keys to the liquor cabinet. The post-1980 regulatory changes were believed to be in the direction of tighter supervision and more rational controls.

It turned out that the regulators were radically ignorant of the consequences of their decisions.

@ The Political Implications of Ignoring Our Own Ignorance (http://www.american.com/archive/2011/december/the-political-implications-of-ignoring-our-own-ignorance)

Awryly
01-06-2013, 08:19 PM
The refuge of the ideologue.

Read some Stiglitz, why dontcha.

Here's some Stiglitz.


The financial sector’s inexcusable recklessness, given free rein by mindless deregulation, was the obvious precipitating factor of the crisis. The legacy of excess real-estate capacity and over-leveraged households makes recovery all the more difficult.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/to-cure-the-economy#qYSUrIhxTpHEX0Mf.99

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/to-cure-the-economy

Uncle Slam
01-06-2013, 08:27 PM
His spending policies were certainly disastrous but they combined with his deregulatory policies to produce the crash.

He spent on the wrong things, including sending billions to organisations who should never have got them, and left a legacy of decay that will take decades to fix.

I read somewhere recently that the "war" on terrorism was built to last forever. I'm starting to believe it. Of course THAT doesn't cost us any money! Yea, right.

Awryly
01-06-2013, 08:38 PM
I read somewhere recently that the "war" on terrorism was built to last forever. I'm starting to believe it. Of course THAT doesn't cost us any money! Yea, right.

Unfortunately, you will have to go on spending money to ward off terrorists because your foreign policies are creating legions of them.

And your continued support of Israel is central to that. Your best hope is that Israel will elect a more conciliatory government in the upcoming elections. Netanyahu hurts you as much as the terrorists do.

Chris
01-06-2013, 09:46 PM
Here's some Stiglitz.

SO you ignore what I posted of Stiglitz and try to redeem yourself with


The financial sector’s inexcusable recklessness, given free rein by mindless deregulation, was the obvious precipitating factor of the crisis. The legacy of excess real-estate capacity and over-leveraged households makes recovery all the more difficult.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...IhxTpHEX0Mf.99

Remember, first, your claim was Stiglitz said it was Bush's deregulatory policies caused the crisis. What was that a red herring? For you now turn to something else altogether.

Second, no one doubts the financial sector's recklessness but that happened in an environment where regulators didn't have a clue what they were doing as Stilitz himself said in my citation of him.

Third, you're once again a victim of your own cherry picking. Indeed Stiglitz wrote that...but immediately following he wrote:


But the economy was very sick before the crisis; the housing bubble merely papered over its weaknesses. Without bubble-supported consumption, there would have been a massive shortfall in aggregate demand....

Fixing the financial sector was necessary for economic recovery, but far from sufficient. To understand what needs to be done, we have to understand the economy’s problems before the crisis hit....

Whether I agree with Stiglitz or not, Stiglistz has shown you don't understand Stiglitz.

All you're doing, awryly, is mouthing lies the Obama campaign made up.