[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sarah wouldn’t take away your guns, unlike the criminals Obama and Biden.[/quote]
Unfortunately, to some of them, these are the only criminals with the absolute right to gun ownership.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The simple fact remains that economists of every stripe, and executive management in Detroit–even the executive management of Ford, which was convinced of the necessity of a bailout for its competitors–insisted that a bailout was made necessary by the fact that credit markets were frozen solid during the financial meltdown. And let’s not pretend that every penny of the bailout fell into some union thug’s pocket–it averted collapse.
[/quote]
So what? Show me where the constitutionally enumerated powers of “economists of every stripe” are located. Or that the chief executive of the USA is compelled to heed their words in clear violation of the carefully delegated authority ratified in that 1787 document we use to guide and limit the power of the central government.
[/quote]
What are you talking about?
Do you know what position I’m arguing and what position I’m arguing against?
edit: this is not a discussion of the Constitionality of the bailout. This is a very specific debate.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Again, though, I’m not contending that the UAW didn’t make out better than they should have.
The simple fact remains that economists of every stripe, and executive management in Detroit–even the executive management of Ford, which was convinced of the necessity of a bailout for its competitors–insisted that a bailout was made necessary by the fact that credit markets were frozen solid during the financial meltdown. And let’s not pretend that every penny of the bailout fell into some union thug’s pocket–it averted collapse.
[/quote]
The Wall Street Journal:
'As Mr. [Richard] Mourdock can attest, the Washington-directed Chrysler bankruptcy was…about paying off Democratic constituencies at the expense of everyone else. As state Treasurer, Mr. Mourdock is the fiduciary responsible for state funds, including two pension funds (for cops and teachers) and a transportation fund that in 2009 had $42.5 million invested in Chrysler debt. The funds had even paid a premium to gain “secured” status, in order to guarantee that they would be first in line to get repaid in a bankruptcy.
Yet when bankruptcy came, the Obama Administration turned established law on its head by first paying off unsecured creditors such as the United Auto Workers. Indiana’s retired teachers and cops (and its taxpayers) were left with 29 cents on the dollarâ??suffering a loss of at least $5.6 millionâ??while the politically connected UAW received higher values and a 55% ownership stake in new Chrysler.
The Obama Administration bullied most secured creditors into accepting this deal, and most had little choice. Not so Mr. Mourdock, who sued on behalf of the Indiana public funds. Democrats now claim that Mr. Mourdock’s lawsuit put jobs at riskâ??even though it intended to protect state pensioners, many of whom belong to unions other than the UAW. Even if you accept that the Obama Administration’s politicized bailout was necessaryâ??and we don’tâ??it didn’t have to trample the contract rights of creditors.’
Obama did exactly as expected. He gave other people’s money to radical unionists, bought up trillions in bad debt, printed money to push interests rates down and payed off the cronie capitalists.
[quote]
So, the handouts to unions aside, Obama would not have bailed out the auto industry if he truly pined for a welfare overload and collapse.[/quote]
The bailouts were begun under the Bush administration. Bernanke and Paulson began buying up bad debt and funneling it into various federal agencies. As a US Senator Obama voted Yes to TARP. When he entered office in January 2009 he allowed Bernanke and Geithner to greatly expand the bailouts and continue buying bad debt from the private sector. This is exactly what one would expect from a socialist. He didn’t ‘save’ the economy. He presided over the largest financial swindle in the history of the mankind.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
This is exactly what one would expect from a socialist.[/quote]
Ah, but this is not what is under discussion. You are contending (without evidence) that he is a saboteur working toward economic collapse and welfare overload.
Let me put it this way:
If Obama had not used bailout money to finance the bankruptcy reorganization of the auto firms, would jobs have been lost?
And another: if Obama had demanded a more extreme version of a fiscal cliff deal, one that he never would have gotten from Republicans, and consequently failed to come to an agreement to avert the sequester, tax increases, and spending cuts, would the economy have been in jeopardy? Is it reasonable to assume that the welfare system may have come under increased pressure, given that the economy could have slip back into recession?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ah, but this is not what is under discussion. You are contending (without evidence) that he is a saboteur working toward economic collapse and welfare overload.
[/quote]
Obama is a narcissist and believes he is a saviour figure and doing good deeds. He wouldn’t see himself as a saboteur. And it’s not without evidence. The evidence is his training(Wade Rathke/Industrial Areas Foundation/Gamaliel Foundation) for starters. Why would he be trained as a saboteur? Why would Bill Ayers fund Obama’s campaign? If I was trained by al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden funded my campaign wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume I’m an Islamist? Especially if my family and associates are Islamists and I have pursued an Islamist agenda throughout my career?
Obama is from the radical, hard left. I’m not a psychiatrist and I don’t intend to scrutinise the motivation for everything he does. The evidence I have presented about Obama demonstrates that he is a serious threat to national security.
UAW jobs yes. Obama could not afford to lose the support of this radical and powerful union that has been one of his key constituents from the start.
It wasn’t extreme enough for you? It contains no significant spending cuts and raises income tax rates for the first time in two decades.
The Wall Street Journal:
"[Boehner’s] solution was to present balking GOP lawmakers with two options: amend the Senate bill to include spending cuts, which would likely kill the deal entirely, or simply put the Senate bill to a vote.
Senate Democratic leaders made clear that, if the House amended the bill, they would not consider the bill…
Mr. Boehner warned his colleagues that making changes risked killing the bill and exposing the GOP to blame for tax increases, spending cuts and possible turmoil in the economy. After canvassing members, Republican leaders decided there wasn’t enough support to revise the bill and prolong the battle."
Obama’s managing the economy like any Commie would. He’s now making up lies saying the Republicans are trying to crash the economy by asking for spending cuts in return for raising the debt ceiling.
"[Obama] said agreeing to link the two[spending cuts and the debt ceiling] would be like a “negotiation with a gun at the head of the American people” in which Republicans would threaten to cut safety-net programs under a threat “to wreck the entire economy.”
He knows that if the ceiling isn’t raised treasury can still prioritise its debt repayments and pay the interest on outstanding debt.
He also needs Congressional support to pass his dystopian legislation. How will he disarm the populace? How will he repeal that pesky 22nd Amendment? But as Obama has consistently said, if Congress won’t give him what he wants he’ll just take it anyway.
[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< 7. Therefore, Obama is not working toward the collapse of the economy nor the overload of the welfare system.[/quote]That IS the collapse of the AMERICAN economy and the continued rise of the new communist one in it’s place. All the bailout money need not wind up in the hands of union thugs for it to still be a payout to the unions. Smart people like you are falling for it. “Look he’s helping”.
Yeah, he’s helping, in his own words, “transform” the United States, into the socialist playground we fought a long nasty cold war allegedly to defeat. Yes, I’d much rather see every big business in America fail and everything that that would mean than be forced to live in the country Obama wants this one to be. It’s coming anyway. 500 years from now our debt still won’t be paid off it we started today. And again, all this financial crap is just a symptom of godlessness anyway.
to be clear, it’s not my intention to defend Obama as a good President. In fact I didn’t vote for him this past November exactly because I don’t think he’s been all that good.
What I’m saying is that the notion that Obama is working toward economic collapse and welfare overload is not supported by the evidence.
Did Obama enact policy in the early days of his first term that was designed to exacerbate the recession, or was it the other way around?
Without the auto bailout, would the US economy have lost jobs? [b]Any[/i] jobs? Because saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
Without a fiscal cliff agreement, would the economy had been worse off? Would an income tax hike on the middle class have had a suppressant effect on the United States economy? Would that suppressant effect be likely to cost jobs? Because, again, saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
The answers to these questions are simple. Union favoritism does not undo the simple fact that the economy has been growing for months and months and months. This is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if the most powerful man in the country were a saboteur hell-bent on bringing the labor market to ruin and overloading the welfare system. Exactly the opposite.
The meltdown began before he took office and recession halted and reversed under his stewardship. This is really the only evidence I could ever need in this particular disagreement.
Now, if Obama enacts some policy which sends us nosediving back into recession, I will reconsider my position. Until then–with the economy growing–a rational observer cannot subscribe to this belief.
And again, I don’t own an Obama t-shirt. I didn’t donate to his campaign. I didn’t vote for him. I simply won’t accept that the President is working toward economic ruin–what was the positive evidence for this case again?–while the economy grows and the recession fades into the fog of the rearview mirror.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
to be clear, it’s not my intention to defend Obama as a good President. In fact I didn’t vote for him this past November exactly because I don’t think he’s been all that good.
What I’m saying is that the notion that Obama is working toward economic collapse and welfare overload is not supported by the evidence.
Did Obama enact policy in the early days of his first term that was designed to exacerbate the recession, or was it the other way around?
Without the auto bailout, would the US economy have lost jobs? [b]Any[/i] jobs? Because saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
Without a fiscal cliff agreement, would the economy had been worse off? Would an income tax hike on the middle class have had a suppressant effect on the United States economy? Would that suppressant effect be likely to cost jobs? Because, again, saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
The answers to these questions are simple. Union favoritism does not undo the simple fact that the economy has been growing for months and months and months. This is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if the most powerful man in the country were a saboteur hell-bent on bringing the labor market to ruin and overloading the welfare system. Exactly the opposite.
The meltdown began before he took office and recession halted and reversed under his stewardship. This is really the only evidence I could ever need in this particular disagreement.
Now, if Obama enacts some policy which sends us nosediving back into recession, I will reconsider my position. Until then–with the economy growing–a rational observer cannot subscribe to this belief.
And again, I don’t own an Obama t-shirt. I didn’t donate to his campaign. I didn’t vote for him. I simply won’t accept that the President is working toward economic ruin–what was the positive evidence for this case again?–while the economy grows and the recession fades into the fog of the rearview mirror.[/quote]
x2
[quote]smh23 wrote:
to be clear, it’s not my intention to defend Obama as a good President. In fact I didn’t vote for him this past November exactly because I don’t think he’s been all that good.
What I’m saying is that the notion that Obama is working toward economic collapse and welfare overload is not supported by the evidence.
Did Obama enact policy in the early days of his first term that was designed to exacerbate the recession, or was it the other way around?
Without the auto bailout, would the US economy have lost jobs? [b]Any[/i] jobs? Because saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
Without a fiscal cliff agreement, would the economy had been worse off? Would an income tax hike on the middle class have had a suppressant effect on the United States economy? Would that suppressant effect be likely to cost jobs? Because, again, saving jobs–any jobs–would be the one thing a Cloward-Piven acolyte would absolutely shun.
The answers to these questions are simple. Union favoritism does not undo the simple fact that the economy has been growing for months and months and months. This is exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if the most powerful man in the country were a saboteur hell-bent on bringing the labor market to ruin and overloading the welfare system. Exactly the opposite.
The meltdown began before he took office and recession halted and reversed under his stewardship. This is really the only evidence I could ever need in this particular disagreement.
Now, if Obama enacts some policy which sends us nosediving back into recession, I will reconsider my position. Until then–with the economy growing–a rational observer cannot subscribe to this belief.
And again, I don’t own an Obama t-shirt. I didn’t donate to his campaign. I didn’t vote for him. I simply won’t accept that the President is working toward economic ruin–what was the positive evidence for this case again?–while the economy grows and the recession fades into the fog of the rearview mirror.[/quote]
X 3…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
to be clear, it’s not my intention to defend Obama as a good President. In fact I didn’t vote for him this past November exactly because I don’t think he’s been all that good…And again, I don’t own an Obama t-shirt. I didn’t donate to his campaign. I didn’t vote for him.[/quote]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
to be clear, it’s not my intention to defend Obama as a good President. In fact I didn’t vote for him this past November exactly because I don’t think he’s been all that good…And again, I don’t own an Obama t-shirt. I didn’t donate to his campaign. I didn’t vote for him.[/quote]
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.[/quote]
Touche. One of the first times I’ve seen this quote used correctly, against someone who is affirming something rather than objecting to something.
That said, you’d be hard pressed to find me praising Obama all that much around here. Saying “he’s not trying to destroy American capitalism” is not the same as “he’s so great.”
Anyway, sorry for making half my post bold.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That said, you’d be hard pressed to find me praising Obama all that much around here. Saying “he’s not trying to destroy American capitalism” is not the same as “he’s so great.”
[/quote]
Yeah I know. I was just joking.
I did laugh.
Anyway, as I said, I will make absolutely certain to rescind my defense of Obama if what you suspect comes to pass.
It IS coming to pass.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It IS coming to pass.[/quote]
Economic collapse?
Surely we’re farther from that today than we were in January of 2009?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It IS coming to pass.[/quote]
Economic collapse?
Surely we’re farther from that today than we were in January of 2009?[/quote]
We are still weak from the first recession. So when the next one hits which will happen within two years we will be far worse off than we were in 2009 because in 2009 we were coming off a decade of relative prosperity. These things happen in waves. There is no direct line down. Sort of like a stock that falls. It falls for a while then stops levels off or goes up a little and then continues it’s path downwards. We are currently in that sort of chart economically.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It IS coming to pass.[/quote]
Economic collapse?
Surely we’re farther from that today than we were in January of 2009?[/quote]
We are still weak from the first recession. So when the next one hits which will happen within two years we will be far worse off than we were in 2009 because in 2009 we were coming off a decade of relative prosperity. These things happen in waves. There is no direct line down. Sort of like a stock that falls. It falls for a while then stops levels off or goes up a little and then continues it’s path downwards. We are currently in that sort of chart economically.
[/quote]
what else does your crystal ball say 
I would say another recession is bound to happen . I just do not believe it will be with in 2 years
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It IS coming to pass.[/quote]
Economic collapse?
Surely we’re farther from that today than we were in January of 2009?[/quote]
We are still weak from the first recession. So when the next one hits which will happen within two years we will be far worse off than we were in 2009 because in 2009 we were coming off a decade of relative prosperity. These things happen in waves. There is no direct line down. Sort of like a stock that falls. It falls for a while then stops levels off or goes up a little and then continues it’s path downwards. We are currently in that sort of chart economically.
[/quote]
Nobody on the planet can guess with certainty when the next recession will come–and that includes world-class economists and heads of state.
Anyway, the point I’m making has little to do with that.
But yes, our economy is extremely fragile. And if, for example, the Euro were to fail, we’d be bad, bad shape.