How many times do republicans need to be proven wrong before they lose all credibilit

The stimulus act of which is being referred to here is the same one that produced TARP. They are both part of the same legislation. Also GW Bush is not Bush II, nor is he a Junior. But he was a closet socialist!! Just another way of saying he was a marxist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How was Bush Junior a socialist?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The debt America has today of over 17 trillion dollars was made by BOTH the Democrats and Republicans so both parties have been in the mix of ruining America not just one or the other.

Both parties agreed to go to war in Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan so they again are both responsible for their actions not just one.

Both parties agreed to steal money from the Social Security funds to fund other agencies that should never have been started in that manner.

So let us be honest both parties are to blame for all the mess America has gotten into and will continue to get into.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, no. TARP was a rescue package, something needed to just to keep banks open and businesses open. The nation was hours away from ATMs not working due to a lack of cash. TARP was life support. It wasn't stimulus.

And it doesn't change the fact that Obama and the democratically controlled congress passed and signed into law a 787 billion dollar stimulus package on February 17, 2009 which stopped and reversed the massive job losses and economic decline. It had nothing to do with George II. And even if it bothers you, George II was the second George Bush to become POTUS. His the son of George I. He is a dynastic POTUS. He is a junior.

 

The Rebuttal to the "rebuttal" of the the Rebuttal.

From post number 70 (here forth, I will simply put the number such #70)

“If by conservatism you mean minimizing risk, using proven policies and tactics, and maximizing return, that doesn’t by any stretch define the current American conservative movement. The current American conservative movement is defined by ridged adherence to doctrine, regardless of science and regardless of rational thought and rule with theatrics and demagoguery. A wise driver varies the speed of his vehicle depending on circumstances and conditions. Drivers of the Republican machine only have one speed and one solution for all circumstances and all conditions.”


The link below would beg to differ on your definition of what a conservative is. Suffice as to say, irrespective of your belief in your self; the definition you penned was clearly a more personal view that also tends to agree with many conservative protagonists. In short, it is a made up definition.

Meanwhile to contrary, many lefty protagonists would argue the definition of what it means to be a liberal, socialist, fascist, etc., using a more realistic definition based on dictionaries and other reference sources. The greater issue is that most definitions do not actually match the said political label. For an example: look up the definition of a liberal and that is almost certainly not the way many who would proscribe themselves as liberal think.

This is not to say that your statement is entirely false. For just as there many liberals who do not fit the definition, the same can be said of “conservatives”.


http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-conservative/


Continuing in #70

“I think you are a little confused; I made no reference to the Constitution in my posts. Let me remind you, the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court. You may not like their rulings. I certainly do not. But that doesn’t change the fact that their powers are derived from the US Constitution.”

Actually, you did mention when you referred to my comments about the justices making up or backing law that is unconstitutional. And then…………

#71

You confirmed it.

“I know this too is difficult for you, but it is true. Obamacare doesn’t fly in the face of the Constitution. And you know as well as I, Obamacare has been ruled constitutional by the US court system.”

My point exactly! Justices do not rule from the constitution, they based on what they think it should say or want it to say.

To clarify my position, it is unconstitutional, because I say so, or because it is Obama’s baby. No, it is unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional. It would not matter to me who was president. If my candidate was elected and proposed this law, I would say the same thing.



More from #70

“I know this comes as a surprise to you, but just because someone does not subscribe to your ideology and ridged beliefs, it doesn’t make them a Marxist. Mao didn’t like intellectuals either. “

By historians, I used the term loosely. That said many who fit my loose definitions have their favorite academia historians. The two will typically have the same opinions. That is clarified, so I will ask you to choose between the two sets of historians.

1) Tom Freeman, Howard Zinn, Eric Foner, Paul Krugman, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann.

2) Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Walter Williams, and Tom Sowell

Which group would choose to get your history from? Please, though I know this plea will be ignored, do not start caterwauling about how the above listed are not historians. I have already stated it, but they are the people that provide history to their readers and listeners. And again, as I wrote above, they will get much of their history from academic historians who think like them. I also know that I did list 2 actual academic historians for each list.

So which would you choose?

Now it is not to say that whichever group you choose would be wrong, as certainly as all would make extremely points from time to time historically speaking. However, both groups express history from a specific viewpoint. Up front one would have a Marxist bent and the other would not.



#70

“It makes for good demagoguery for the simple minded.”

This statement amply describes the person I am writing to.


#70

“Decades down the road, perhaps the economy would have eventually recovered,……”

Followed by:

“And if you think I am lying about the Obama economic recovery, prove it. I will be waiting. I think I will be waiting for a very long time.”

Should I point out the obviousness of these 2 statements you made in the same paragraph?

Or will you confirmed the “simple minded” reference made above?

#70 the ellipses

“and after much civil unrest and perhaps a new government and much suffering”

If this actually happened, and I am going to guess the new government would be what the original intent was; then it would be a positive. Obviously, you disagree. If I have read this paragraph wrong, then we are in deeper poo than imagined. Although, you would deny this.

#70

“The fact is when Obama assumed office; the nation was losing nearly a million jobs a month and more with each passing month. The economy was shrinking at an ever growing rate – shrinking at an annualized rate of 10%. . The nation’s banks were on the verge of collapse. Deficits were soaring. All of that has been reversed. All of that changed with the auto industry bailouts and the subsequent stimulus packages passed by a democratic congress and signed into law by President Obama. “

This is truly insulting to many people who believe in capitalism and free markets. So the banks were on the verge of collapse, let them. Deficits are still soaring, this is one you are in a full denial.

None of it has been reversed.

We are paying more for products and government services than ever before without any real rise in wages (this is not an argument for higher minimum wage a bogus policy if ever there was one). Businesses outside of government financed ones are hiring people part time to avoid high regulation costs and keep prices down.

 

Response #84

Ah yes, look it up. Tarp came from the Bogus Stimulus Act of 2008, it was an inclusion to it. The actual legislation began many months earlier as you correctly pointed out, however the bill did not actually pass until later that year & Tarp came from it as a piece of it.

 

Response #82

If you don't know how, then you are part of the problem.

 

Response #83

Totally agree!!!

 

So you & Bush II are part of the problem.

 

NO, YOU LOOK IT UP. I'll give you the links. The Stimulus Act of 2008 was a bill which gave tax credits to tax payers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stimulus_Act_of_2008

Definition: The Troubled Asset Recovery Program (TARP) had its roots in the October 2008 bank bailout bill. Then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's original idea was to set it up as a reverse auction. Banks would submit bid prices on their toxic mortgage-backed securities to the Treasury Department. Treasury administrators would select the lowest price offered. The banks didn't want to take a loss, so they wanted Treasury to pay full price for these assets. The government knew they were worth far less. Ultimately, this reverse auction was unworkable, so the plan was shelved. hthttp://useconomy.about.com/od/glossary/g/TARP.htm

The two laws were related only in this sense; they were intended to address problems related to the Recession which began in December of 2007 and ended in June of 2009, after TARP and after Obama’s stimulus. The Stimulus Act of 2008 was stimulus. TARP, also known as the bank bailout, was intended to address a totally different problem. It wasn’t stimulus, it was a bill designed to keep the doors to the nation’s banks and businesses open.

TARP was not a continuation of the Stimulus Bill of 2008. TARP was written in the middle of a liquidity crisis to fix a critical and immediate crisis several months after the Stimulus Act of 2008 was enacted . It was 3 pages written by one man, then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.


Below is text from a Frontline story on TARP.

"So Paulson creates this TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] plan. And I guess the way it is written out is he writes it on three pages, and then he goes to Congress and has to sell them on the disaster that is about to happen. What's your take on that moment?

Well, that moment was the result of everything that had preceded it, you know. And Hank Paulson came before a commission. He said that by the time he became Treasury secretary [in 2006], the toothpaste was out of the tube. In fact, he had been doing a lot of squeezing as the CEO of Goldman Sachs, and in many respects the toothpaste was out of the tube.

So, you know, TARP I think was just emblematic of the slow-footed response, the lack of grasping of the depth of the rot within the financial system. Again, I don't impugn people's motives here, but Hank Paulson is the same person who, throughout the spring of 2007, is assuring everyone. And he is Treasury secretary. He has been in the financial marketplace. He is assuring everyone that the subprime crisis will not spill over and there is little risk of that, as is Bernanke.

So look, TARP, like the AIG bailout, is just a manifestation of the mad scramble that has to take place to try to contain the damage from years of neglect in Washington and recklessness on Wall Street. I mean, the bill finally came due."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oral-history/financial-crisis/tags/tarp/

And what had gone of before was the failure of Lehman Brothers, a major financial institution and repeal of important banking regulation and loosing of commodity trading and SEC laws and regulations.

Now you can continue to deny reality, deny the facts as folks of your particular ideology are want to do, but it won’t change reality and it won’t change the facts.

The two laws were related only in this sense, they were intended to address problems related to the Recession of 2007 to 2009.

 

You really need to get your head out of bogus and sensational headlines and understand the subject matter. That 17 trillion dollars includes money, the government owes itself. It is an artifact of government accounting. The real debt is about 12.5 trillion dollars. If our government used the same accounting method used by private businesses, the reported debt would be 12.5 trillion dollars. The interagency debt would be netted out (i.e consolidated). And the US GDP (i.e. income) was 16.8 trillion dollars.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Well not so much, one party was more for war than the other with the exception being Vietnam. And let’s not forget the information they were given by the George II administration was wrong. The George II administration lied to congress and the world for that matter. And Afghanistan was a just and necessary war. What wasn’t necessary was the George II bungling of the Afghanistan war which turned engagement which should have lasted only a few months into one which will last for 14 years. And there is no excuse for the George II administration’s outright loss of 12 billion dollars in cash in Iraq or his complete bungling of Iraq War II.

I cannot fault you on that one. Though Ronald Reagan, a Republican POTUS, put that raiding on steroids.

Both parties are to blame, but they don’t share the blame equally. And that doesn't change the fact that the nation is more prosperous under democratic control and more fiscally prudent under democratic control than under republican control.

 

Definitely. There is very little difference between the two parties when it comes to the amount of spending; the only difference is in what they want all that money spent on. For the democrats it's social programs and bailouts of small businesses, for republicans it's military spending and bailouts of large businesses.

 

Agreed, and yet the republicans claim they are the "party of fiscal responsibility."

Also agreed - but if the alternative is "hey, let us help you out some more; there are still some people left alive" I can see why even the country itself might pass on the help.