Quantcast
Republican or Democrat?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Republican or Democrat?

bannedagain said:
dsage01 said:
badgenome said:
bannedagain said:
badgenome said:

I don't really see how the first three were particularly detrimental to the economy in the short term, unless you believe that debt and deficits are what caused the recession. The sub-prime crisis seems a far likelier culpri

WARS ARE EXPENSIVE. YOU HAVE TO RAISE TAXES WHEN YOU GO TO WAR.  When you put money back into jobs it makes sense.

Okay? But what does that have to do with this specific recession? It seems like you're spouting slogans and blaming the recession on things you dislike, which may or may not be bad things but aren't generally thought to have had anything to do with why the economy crashed. The general consensus is that years of easy credit gave us too much debt at all levels of the economy, especially in the housing sector, and it eventually blew up in our faces. If you have an alternate theory, I'm interested to hear it, but please - no more GOERGE BUSH MAED A WAR AND IT WAS SAD AND BAD JOBS NOT BOMBS!!!! stuff.


Okay the main reason ression happend in 2008 was that the Republican's left U.S.A in charge of the banks. And when China made 2 trillion dollars off of profits in exports they decided to invest it the U.S. banks they gave loans to them and with that money the people bought products and invested in houses and Cars which China was buying back and paying intrest for there own stuff as well. So when they found that out they got really pissed and took there money back and U.S economeny went down like crazy .. read the updated OP for the full information. Wars and other stupid decions made by Republican's (no tax on big corpartions) were quite a big problem as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP0ygzR3L5w&feature=player_embedded#at=405

watch and learn

I wish the Republican's actaully listend to the democrats at that point of time. Anyways the reason I listed was THE MAIN REASON why U.S.A had a huge crash in the econemy



Around the Network
Kantor said:

Gary Johnson is a less crazy (but unfortunately less popular) version of Ron Paul. My personal favourite is Rudy Giuliani, but he hasn't announced that he will run, and it's not even being widely speculated. The nomination will go to either Romney (whom I still like MUCH more than most of the Republican field) or those nutcases Cain, Palin and Bachmann.

Ron Paul is an extremist. He has the right idea, but he takes it so far as to make it ludicrous. He opposed raising the debt ceiling when there were two days left before the Treasury ran out of money (yes, the final deal was terrible, but only because all of the Democrats were screaming "Don't touch Medicare!" and the Republicans screamed back "No tax increases!).

Guiliani has an atrocious foreign policy.  He'd have us invade all of the Middle East if you let him.

As for the debt ceiling?  The Treasury ran out of money months ago.  We were already spending $250 billion over the debt limit.  It was already broke.   That $250 billion was borrowed despite it being ove the limit.  And ALL the debt ceiling increase does in allow the Treasury to print more Treasury Bonds to sel to the Fed and China to pay for proposed budget increases.  It doesn't go to pay anything already being paid for.  Not so extreme anymore, is it?



The rEVOLution is not being televised

Viper1 said:
Kantor said:

Gary Johnson is a less crazy (but unfortunately less popular) version of Ron Paul. My personal favourite is Rudy Giuliani, but he hasn't announced that he will run, and it's not even being widely speculated. The nomination will go to either Romney (whom I still like MUCH more than most of the Republican field) or those nutcases Cain, Palin and Bachmann.

Ron Paul is an extremist. He has the right idea, but he takes it so far as to make it ludicrous. He opposed raising the debt ceiling when there were two days left before the Treasury ran out of money (yes, the final deal was terrible, but only because all of the Democrats were screaming "Don't touch Medicare!" and the Republicans screamed back "No tax increases!).

Guiliani has an atrocious foreign policy.  He'd have us invade all of the Middle East if you let him.

As for the debt ceiling?  The Treasury ran out of money months ago.  We were already spending $250 billion over the debt limit.  It was already broke.   That $250 billion was borrowed despite it being ove the limit.  And ALL the debt ceiling increase does in allow the Treasury to print more Treasury Bonds to sel to the Fed and China to pay for proposed budget increases.  It doesn't go to pay anything already being paid for.  Not so extreme anymore, is it?

Three things could happen if the ceiling stayed intact:

1) Obama ignores the vote and borrows anyway. That would be pretty awful. Possible impeachment and a pretty much definite downgrade for having a rubbish political process.

2) Immediately cut the budget by 40%, several months after the budget has been agreed. Incidentally, borrowing and spending should really be cleared by the same vote.

3) Default.

All of those three are bad. Yes, having high debt is bad, but the others are worse.

If Ron Paul wants to decrease spending, he should put forward his own budget at the proper time. Which isn't now.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Kantor said:
Viper1 said:
Kantor said:

Gary Johnson is a less crazy (but unfortunately less popular) version of Ron Paul. My personal favourite is Rudy Giuliani, but he hasn't announced that he will run, and it's not even being widely speculated. The nomination will go to either Romney (whom I still like MUCH more than most of the Republican field) or those nutcases Cain, Palin and Bachmann.

Ron Paul is an extremist. He has the right idea, but he takes it so far as to make it ludicrous. He opposed raising the debt ceiling when there were two days left before the Treasury ran out of money (yes, the final deal was terrible, but only because all of the Democrats were screaming "Don't touch Medicare!" and the Republicans screamed back "No tax increases!).

Guiliani has an atrocious foreign policy.  He'd have us invade all of the Middle East if you let him.

As for the debt ceiling?  The Treasury ran out of money months ago.  We were already spending $250 billion over the debt limit.  It was already broke.   That $250 billion was borrowed despite it being ove the limit.  And ALL the debt ceiling increase does in allow the Treasury to print more Treasury Bonds to sel to the Fed and China to pay for proposed budget increases.  It doesn't go to pay anything already being paid for.  Not so extreme anymore, is it?

Three things could happen if the ceiling stayed intact:

1) Obama ignores the vote and borrows anyway. That would be pretty awful. Possible impeachment and a pretty much definite downgrade for having a rubbish political process.

2) Immediately cut the budget by 40%, several months after the budget has been agreed. Incidentally, borrowing and spending should really be cleared by the same vote.

3) Default.

All of those three are bad. Yes, having high debt is bad, but the others are worse.

If Ron Paul wants to decrease spending, he should put forward his own budget at the proper time. Which isn't now.

His son, Rand already did this months ago before the debate even happened. It called for balancing the budget in just 5 years, and slashing government spending by approximately ~10 trillion dollars.

http://campaignforliberty.com/materials/RandBudget.pdf



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kantor said:

If Ron Paul wants to decrease spending, he should put forward his own budget at the proper time. Which isn't now.

Aside from Mr. Stickball's note, his other budget idea is to elect him to the office of POTUS.  He's also been making proper budgetary and cutting proposals for decades. 



The rEVOLution is not being televised