Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Obamacare: so you won't vote for Romney then...

The stimulus: no way to really know, but many independent economists have said unemployment would have been several points higher and some say the stimulus was too small. Unemployment doubled under Bush , went up about 2% more in the beginning of Obama's presidency, has dropped back down and is trending down.

Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point. 8% more than Reagan, at this point. Definitely a sign of a radical.

Taking over the auto industry: again... you must be joking. GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year. Chrysler had the first profitable year since 2005. The loans to the auto companies prevented economic devastation.

Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist. So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate. Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah. $80 billion loan to the auto industry, most of which was paid back, almost exactly the same amount of subsidies for fossil fuel industry from 2002-2008. Quite radical.

Zimmy, you tried to portray Obama as centrist by ignoring everything liberal he's ever done. A person isn't defined only by the moderate things they do, they are defined by everything they do. A child knows this, but you tried that cheap ploy anyway. I'm sorry if I embarassed you by pointing that out, but when you deal with me, you would do well to remember that I am somewhat knowledgable of actual events, I am pretty thoughtful, and fairly rational. You aren't going to convince me that Obama isn't liberal by ignoring everything liberal he's ever done.

"Obamacare: so you won't vote for Romney then... "

Please show me where Romney suggested that he would impose Obamacare on the entire nation, and I will withdraw my support.

See Zimmy, you, like Spence, have already made up your mind, and you then try to bend all the facts to fit your agenda. I look at facts as they actually are, and then make my decision. That's how critical thinking works.

"The stimulus: no way to really know"

No way to know? Let's talk about what we do know. It cost $750 billion. Obama claims that it saved 3 million jobs. Even if we believe that, that works out to $250,000 per job. Ridiculous. We also know that most of the jobs saved were public sector union jobs (big suprise, since public sector labor unions give all their $$ to Democrats). Those jobs can only be saved again next year, and every year after that, by raising taxes on folks. Those jobs do not create wealth, the destroy wealth by requiring taxes to fund them. What else do we know? OBAMA HIMSELF admitted on TV that the country is worse off now than it was 3 years ago. We also know that we didn't have that money laying around, we borrowed it. So we have to pay interest on that, meaning our kids and grandkids will be paying for it.

"Adding more debt: yeah 2% more than Bush 2 at this point"

EXCUSE ME? Are you taking your cues from Spence, and literally making it up as you go along?

US Federal Debt by Year - Charts Tables History

In 2008, when Bush left, debt was $10.0 trillion. At the end of 2011, it was $14.8 trillion. Assuming these numbers are correct, that's a 48% increase. When I got my degree in math at UCONN, they taught me that 48% is a whole lot more than 2%. Furthermore, some of the Bush debt was awesome debt...for instance, Bush's AIDS funding is credited by Stanford University (not a conservative think tank) with saving the lives of more than a million Africans. I'll HAPPILY pay higher taxes for something that noble. Wht has Obama done that can compare? What do we have to show for a 48% increase in debt?

In 3 years, Obama has increased the debt by 48%. Zimmy, if you have different numbers saying he increased debt by 2%, please enlighten me.

"GM has a record $7.6 billion profit last year"

When you get subsidized $$ from the govt, and permission from the president to screw your bondholders, it's a bit easier to be profitable.
Zimmy, I thought the Occupy agitators were opposed to a system that rewards political insiders at the expense of everyone else. Liberals went berserk when Bush bailed out the banks (which I was also opposed to), but those same liberals think it's great that Obama bailed out the auto industry? Why the double-standard? Answer...the auto industry is unionized, and unions support Democrats, so it's OK to bail them out. In other words, organizations that are sypmathetic to liberals can get huge bailouts, and nobody else.

"Remember, this started by you claiming Obama was so far from a centrist."

Correct. No one who supports infanticide can be called a centrist.

"So he pushed for the same health plan as the leading Republican candidate"

Wrong. America isn't the same thing as Massachusetts. Apples and oranges. What's good for a particular state isn't necessarily what's good for our country.

"Raised debt during a recession, about the same percent as the previous republican president over 8 years and within 10% of the Republican political messiah"

That has been proven by me as 100% false. Not even close to the truth. Not even close. You go ahead and show me how he only increased debt by 2%, and I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice (probbaly some charity trying to free Abu Mumia Jamal from prison), and I'll do it publicly here. Good luck.

You have been completely, and I mean completely, annihilated.

2% increase in debt. And here in CT, my side loses to your side every single year. I'm glad my financial security is just about all set in after-tax accounts, so that when the sh*t hits the fan thanks to people like you who don't know the difference between 2% and 48%, my family will be secure. Don't come crying to me when the checks start bouncing Zimmy.

2% increase in debt! Did you hear that everybody? No need to be worried about the debt, stop claiming that Obama is flushing the economy down the toilet and following Europe off the cliff! Zimmy says that Obama has only increased debt by 2%, so there's no need for concern! The Tea Party agenda has no merit, none at all. Nothing to see here, no need for concern.

Thanks Zimmy, because I was under the opinion that we had accumulated debt to the point of it being a national security issue.

Zimmy, since you were making jibberish up, why did yuo stop at the 2% lie? Why didn't you claim that Obama personaly paid back all of our debt out of his own checkbook? Then he'd really be somethiing...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You have been completely, and I mean completely, annihilated.

2% increase in debt! Zimmy says that Obama has only increased debt by 2%, so there's no need for concern!

you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.

By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2% . You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.

By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2% . You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off.

OK, so what was your point? That his debt increase was 2% more than Bush's debt increase?

If that's what your point was, it has very little validity. First, we don't repay "percentages", we repay absolute dollars. Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war. Bush, as I said, also saved 1.2 million lives in Africa (for which, in a fair world, he would have received the Nobel Peace Prize, instead he gets called a racist), and THAT'S worth going into debt for. Giving teachers insane pensions is not worth breaking the bank for, in my humble opinion.

By the end of 2012, the debt will be around $15 trillion. That's a 50% increase over what he inherited. And what do we have to show for it? Bush built an anti-terror infrastructure from scratch, saved 1.2 million Africans from AIDS (for which he gets almost zero credit), and liberated millions of Muslims worldwide, from other, monstrous, Muslims.

Obama has kept killing terrorists, I give him big-time kudos for that. But he doesn't understand high-school level economics. Obama, like most liberals, believes that poverty is caused by other people's wealth. That can only be true if wealth is finite, like a pizza. That is demonstrably false, since GDP changes over time. You help poor people by giving them the tools they need to get wealthier, not by giving them someone else's money. Obama also doesn't seem to understand that there are limits to what you can reasonably borrow.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war.

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

1. Taxes typically go up as well to cover the costs, not down (i.e. the Bush tax 'cuts'
2. We were "Dragged" into 1 war (Afganastan). We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted.

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation). That's another thing that Obama, and liberals, don't get. If you want to raise tax revenue (dollars collected), raising tax rates isn't always the answer. Tax dollars collected aren't maximized at tax rates of 100%, because people stop working before that.

"We were "Dragged" into 1 war "

Correct.

"We went willingly into a second (Iraq), which many feel was not warranted"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"1. Taxes typically go up as well "

Ah, you may want to check your facts. Taxes, in terms of dollars collected (which in the end is all that matters) DID go up during the Bush years, even though tax rates went down (because the economy grew more than tax rates went down, and EVERYONE wins in that situation).

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"

Also correct. I was there, and I feel pretty good when I get the letters from families whose futures are infinitely improved. Let's remember that it wasn't just conservatives who willingly entered that war, the Senators who voted in favor included Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Schumer, Boxer, Kerry...All liberals, who fully suported the war (until the political winds changed, and then they acted like they were dragged into it against their will, which is a despicable thing to do).

I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term? I'll restate it. Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?




I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good.
I stand by my opinion, which has been consistant. There were other ways to deal with Iraq, that did not equate to a decade long ground war.

"If it is that simple why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

Of course it's not that simple. Cutting tax rates doesn't always increase revenue. But Obama keeps saying that if he raises tax rates by x%, we'll get X% more revenue. The goal (and it's challenging) should be to grow the economy, so that you can raise revenue by decreasing rates. I don't hear Obama suggesting that. All I ever hear from him, in terms of addressing debt, is hiking up rates on the wealthy. As you said, it's not that simple. I know it's not as simple as saying revenue changes with rates, but Obama doesn't seem to know that. Why is that?

"Revinue was increased to pay the costs of war, fairer statement? These are still largely unfunded, unpaid for wars, no?"

Absolutely correct. One of those wars was to destroy Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The other was to remove someone who was repeatedly violating the terms of the UN resolution he signed. Very, very expensive (I bet it cost me more than it cost you). And one can make a compelling argument that it wasn't worth the cost or the blood.

"I'm sure you and everyone else did a lot of good."

Thank you...

"why did the economy start to tank during the second half of Bush's second term?"

SUBPRIME MORTGAGES. Liberals, not conservatives, put pressure on banks to give mortgages to people who had zero hope of repaying them. Then those crappy mortgages were bundled and invested in ways that almost nobody understands (derivitives, credit default swaps). Lots of blame to go around on both sides for the investment side of it.

Put it this way. The economy grew like crazy, starting in Clinton's second term. What did he do to make that happen? He balanced the budget, cut taxes, cut spending. He also (very bravely in my opinion) told millions of healthy, lazy Americans on welfare to get back to work. Do you know what they did? THEY WENT BACK TO WORK. The economy grew like crazy, unemployment was so low my dog could have gotten hired at a Fortune 500 company. Quite simply, it worked.

We need to learn from past mistakes. Not just conservative mistakes, but liberal mistakes too. The liberal states in New England are in horrible shape. Here in CT, our solution was to implement the largest tax hike in the history of our state last July (and they made the increases retroactive to January 1, so we had to be double the increase for the rest of that year!), and we increased spending. Meanwhile, we continue to give public labor unions a blank check. On the federal level, liberals refuse to accept the reality (sad reality, but still reality) that we have to cut Social Security and Medicare. There literally is no choice. The math shows we will never have enough tax revenue to fund promised benefits. I wish we could solve all our problems by tweaking tax rates on zillionaires. That accomplishes nothing. But to hear Obama, you'd think that was the answer to our prayers.

Where am I wrong or unreasonable?