|
|
On May 25 2012 19:22 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 08:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:On May 24 2012 09:43 Epocalypse wrote:On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama. When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out! Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive. It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality. The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations. But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not. I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success.
While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets.
|
On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter.
I agree, though perhaps my ambiguous wording didn't help. When I said "after the economy has improved", I meant that both spending cuts and revenue increases should be pursued only after the economy is back on track.
We need to fix the economy first, then we need to work on the debt. Unfortuantely, we have a habit of forgetting about debt problems once we're doing well.
|
On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter.
It is a more pressing matter. The downfall of the US government would prove detrimental to the economy, with the fall of the dollar and treasury bonds. I agree that not much has been done to actually heal the deficit, but the government would only be able to put in regulations that would prevent another recession.
|
On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall.
why would you vote for romney if he is basically taking the position of obama? just vote obama friend 
|
On May 26 2012 11:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter. I agree, though perhaps my ambiguous wording didn't help. When I said "after the economy has improved", I meant that both spending cuts and revenue increases should be pursued only after the economy is back on track. We need to fix the economy first, then we need to work on the debt. Unfortuantely, we have a habit of forgetting about debt problems once we're doing well.
I don't have a background in economics but it would seem like a good idea to spend now and maintain tax rates while interest rates are low and then pursue cuts almost exclusively (even tax cuts) when the economy is healthy and consumers are less hesitant to utilize a tax cut.
|
On May 26 2012 12:30 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:51 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter. I agree, though perhaps my ambiguous wording didn't help. When I said "after the economy has improved", I meant that both spending cuts and revenue increases should be pursued only after the economy is back on track. We need to fix the economy first, then we need to work on the debt. Unfortuantely, we have a habit of forgetting about debt problems once we're doing well. I don't have a background in economics but it would seem like a good idea to spend now and maintain tax rates while interest rates are low and then pursue cuts almost exclusively (even tax cuts) when the economy is healthy and consumers are less hesitant to utilize a tax cut.
That's actually the opposite of what a Keynesian policy would suggest. (The 2nd part at least) You're supposed to raise taxes in healthy economies, as people should be more able to manage them and you can obtain surpluses that can help towards the debt/programs/whatever. Neither party really follows this mantra however.
|
Politicians gonna be politicians. Don't think the outcome of this race will have any actual consequences. :/
As such, I can't trouble myself to re-re-switch my voter registration location and then actually go out to vote on election day. Fuck that shit.
|
On May 26 2012 12:30 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:51 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter. I agree, though perhaps my ambiguous wording didn't help. When I said "after the economy has improved", I meant that both spending cuts and revenue increases should be pursued only after the economy is back on track. We need to fix the economy first, then we need to work on the debt. Unfortuantely, we have a habit of forgetting about debt problems once we're doing well. I don't have a background in economics but it would seem like a good idea to spend now and maintain tax rates while interest rates are low and then pursue cuts almost exclusively (even tax cuts) when the economy is healthy and consumers are less hesitant to utilize a tax cut.
Did you accidentally say "cuts" when you meant "hikes"? Your post doesn't really make economic sense otherwise.
|
On May 26 2012 12:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 12:30 forgottendreams wrote:On May 26 2012 11:51 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:42 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:31 sunprince wrote:On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. If he convincingly demonstrates that he'll push to both slash spending and increase revenue after the economy has improved (and Obama fails to do the same), he'll win my vote. Personally, I want the economy back on track before we even mess with the debt/deficit. Kinda pissed Obama has been swept into thinking the debt is a more pressing matter. I agree, though perhaps my ambiguous wording didn't help. When I said "after the economy has improved", I meant that both spending cuts and revenue increases should be pursued only after the economy is back on track. We need to fix the economy first, then we need to work on the debt. Unfortuantely, we have a habit of forgetting about debt problems once we're doing well. I don't have a background in economics but it would seem like a good idea to spend now and maintain tax rates while interest rates are low and then pursue cuts almost exclusively (even tax cuts) when the economy is healthy and consumers are less hesitant to utilize a tax cut. Did you accidentally say "cuts" when you meant "hikes"? Your post doesn't really make economic sense otherwise.
Well I have really have no idea what economic camp I'm even in really with my position I'm just throwing ideas out there. To me it would seem (on an intuitive level) that tax cuts during a recession would have a far more muffled effect since consumers are extremely insecure and less willing to spend (even with a tax cut).
I made a post to get some ideas from people that do know about economics though so feel free to teach me a few lessons or provide some good empirical journals on this.
|
On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall.
Are you kidding? Obama has been saying the same thing for ages except his plans go even further (and are thus better) than Romney when it comes to stimulating the economy. Romney was among the ten Republican candidates who raised their hands when asked if they would refuse a debt-ceiling deal where for every dollar in additional spending they would get 10$ in cuts, remember? Even Boehner did not go that far.
|
On May 26 2012 11:48 BroodKingEXE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2012 19:22 kwizach wrote:On May 25 2012 08:20 BroodKingEXE wrote:On May 24 2012 22:37 kwizach wrote:On May 24 2012 09:43 Epocalypse wrote:On May 24 2012 08:22 kwizach wrote:On May 23 2012 08:52 xDaunt wrote:
Here's the bottom line: Obama used the government to get his union pals sweetheart deals rather than merely letting the companies go into bankruptcy and get their debt issues fixed. It was an unnecessary, expensive, and corrupt move.
Here's the bottom line: you're wrong. What Obama did was exactly the right way to manage the issue, as acknowledged by every single actor who was involved/is knowledgeable on the subject and not involved in trying to defeat Obama. When you promote bad ideas by bailing out (friend or not) you only encourage more bad ideas. When you implement a "too big to fail" mentality you encourage bigger, non calculated, risk taking and ignore facts because no matter what you do, you will just be bailed out! Free markets work because there is a profit motive. That's what gives incentive to make rational decisions based on the facts. The alternative being making poor decisions and losing it all. Removing the risk only promotes bad decisions because you have nothing to lose. Unfortunately neither Obama nor Romney understand this. What's worse is that the money used to bailout the crappy companies comes from the successful companies who could better to allocate those resources to something productive. It has been pointed out countless times already in this thread and in the republican nominations thread that your idea of a free market fixing itself and not being prone to crises has no basis in reality. The answer isn't simply to bail financial institutions out and cross fingers, it's to bail them out (the alternative being the loss of far too many jobs) AND adopt tighter regulations that will help prevent further crises. Unfortunately, today's Republicans are ideologically-opposed to regulations. But a defaulting government, will help the free market? The government bailed out not only the banks, but a failing automotive industry. Auto companies in the US wont be able to compete, going on the track that they have been going, so how does government giving them money help this comapany correct itself? Pure regulation will prevent these companies from making mistakes, and bailouts will not. I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success. While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets.
Well, so far, they've been successful.
|
On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall.
If the economy falls back into outright recession, we'll get a much larger stimulus with Romney as president than if Obama remains president. Congress has to pass the bills after all.
|
On May 26 2012 12:12 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 11:25 aksfjh wrote:On May 26 2012 11:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republican House Speaker John Boehner and GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney have, in the course of the past week, pushed starkly different approaches to fiscal policy and economic recovery, a window into a broader rift within the GOP between the Tea Party and less absolutist conservatives.
Boehner, carrying the Tea Party line on spending, recently said that he would insist that the deficit be cut by a dollar for every dollar increase in the debt limit, or else he would refuse to raise it, helping drive the country toward default.
"When the time comes, I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase," Boehner said.
"Dealing with our deficit and our debt would help create more economic growth in the United States," Boehner told George Stephanopolous Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "The issue is the debt."
Romney, however, said that pushing drastic spending cuts during shaky economic times is a prescription for "recession or depression."
Asked by Time's Mark Halperin Wednesday why he wouldn't push major cuts in his first year, Romney responded with reasoning that would be largely uncontroversial if not for the past two years' mainstreaming of an economic philosophy that insists government spending actually costs jobs, rather than creates job.
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course," Romney said in an answer picked up by former bank regulator William Black, a HuffPost blogger.
Boehner, by contrast, said cutting spending will spur the economy by giving "certainty" to the business community. "It would lift this cloud of uncertainty that's causing employers to wonder what's next. So dealing with our debt and our deficit are critically important," he said.
Any spending cuts, Romney said, should come down the road, after the economy has improved. Source +1 for Romney. If he keeps saying stuff like that, I might be inclined to vote for him in the fall. why would you vote for romney if he is basically taking the position of obama? just vote obama friend
Sure, Obama takes a position similar, but he's being blown way off course and not correcting it. He doesn't combat the "debt debate" with a focus on getting the economy back on track, but rather how he would go about doing it.
There's still a ton I see wrong with Romney, mainly what he's done to secure the GOP nomination. If he shows himself to be quite sensible, like in that quote, I'm more inclined to vote for him. Like somebody else said, he would have an easier time getting something through Congress than Obama would, even if Obama had a more "Republican" plan.
|
On May 26 2012 13:17 kwizach wrote:
I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success.
While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets.
Well, so far, they've been successful.
Why not simply remove tariffs and let the Japanese produce cars way better, and far cheaper than we can. That way we can allocate the funds put into American auto industry somewhere better.
Define successful so far... as in they haven't bankrupted yet? What are their profits like?
"We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
|
What a bullshit quote, plenty of countries in the world with alot of taxes that are pretty damn successful. That being said, that doesnt mean that high taxes is necessarily correct for the US.
Has Romney chosen his running mate yet? Been out of the loop for a few weeks.
|
Forgot to mention that Obama killed Chrysler Financial Canada (only the name was similar but we we're not part of the auto company "Chrysler" we could easily have changed the name to Auto Financial) they provided car loans, lease programs for all auto makers, not limited to Chrysler, it was just convenient to use the name Chrysler because of who they would be providing loans to most thanks to the nature of the Canadian market at the time.
Well, I bet you didn't know that Obama actually forced them out of business with his favoritism. Ending hundreds of jobs in Canada! Fortunately TD Bank came along and bought the business and re-integrated the remaining employees into TD. However hundreds of jobs were lost before TD came along 2 years later. (I know first hand because of the many people that I knew worked there)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/canadas-td-takes-control-of-chryslers-financial-arm-20110611-1fxo6.html
This is not a vote against Obama, I'm sure Romney would do something similar. But rather I bring it up because these are huge negatives of bailouts, and government's hand in the economy. Under Romney or Obama, this kind of stuff will always happen. It's the nature of favoritism.
|
On May 26 2012 20:15 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2012 13:17 kwizach wrote:
I said bailouts and regulations. The sector's doing much better now - the bailout of the auto companies was a success.
While currently it may seem that American auto-companies are successful I question the ability to compete in the emerging hybrid market. The way I see it american motor companies are still stuck in an area of the market (the SUV) that will continue to be unsuccessful on international and domestic markets. Why not simply remove tariffs and let the Japanese produce cars way better, and far cheaper than we can. That way we can allocate the funds put into American auto industry somewhere better. Define successful so far... as in they haven't bankrupted yet? What are their profits like? "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." - Winston Churchill
Why do you deliberately make a post about how you are ignorant of a topic instead of researching that topic?
2011 was an extremely good year for American automakers. A salient quote on why the bailout was so critical to this: Only federal bailouts and bankruptcies in 2009 kept GM and Chrysler alive, while Ford lived on cash it had borrowed just before the crisis.
Why not try to compete with Japanese production? They are an industrialized nation, same as we are. They're not paying workers pennies on our dollar.
And who said anything about us trying to tax ourselves into prosperity? We're trying to tax AND cut our way into not being broke. Only Republicans seem to forget about that former part.
|
On May 26 2012 20:29 Catch]22 wrote:
What a bullshit quote, plenty of countries in the world with alot of taxes that are pretty damn successful. That being said, that doesnt mean that high taxes is necessarily correct for the US.
Has Romney chosen his running mate yet? Been out of the loop for a few weeks.
It would be good to point to some examples you think fit.
|
On May 26 2012 20:31 Vega62a wrote:
And who said anything about us trying to tax ourselves into prosperity? We're trying to tax AND cut our way into not being broke. Only Republicans seem to forget about that former part.
Where do you think bailouts come from? Taxed money. Printing new money without having anything to back it... called inflation is also a tax, but the rate is unknown until the money printing stops. Unfortunately it's the middle class, lower class that suffer the most.
Foreign cars are already very successful in sales in North America, imagine how much more successful they would be if they were 3,000-10,000 cheaper. Remove tariffs and that's what you get.
|
How is Romney even catching up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
