Liberal Democrats Have No Financial Sense!

reply to post by David9176

THEY CAME FROM SAUDI ARABIA. Why aren't we attacking them? Why are we in Iraq when they didn't have WMD's? WTF man.

We didnt attack Saudi Arabia because AlQueda leadership does not reside in Saudi Arabia. If they had they would have had the good sense to turn them over to us and war could have been averted.

One reason we are in Iraq is because they broke the cease fire agreement countless times. Maybe if Sadaam didnt running around claiming to have WMD's and threatening to use them until right up before the war began we wouldnt have been able to make that claim.

reply to post by mrwupy


Well I dont know what he did as Gov of Arkansas but while he was President and especially from the last part of his first term and on into his second his actions were pretty moderate.

reply to post by mrwupy

Bill Clinton was about as liberal as a Democrat can get.

I don't agree. Yes, Clinton did balance the budget..but he also signed NAFTA which has been nothing but disastrous to the American worker and our economy as a whole. He wasn't the only one...many Republicans signed on to this piece of trash policy...including Newt Gingrich...champion of the people!!

Clinton did some good things...but NAFTA will be his legacy....or his backdoor criminal dealings in the middle east which helped bring about the war on terrorism garbage along with prior presidents.

Clinton was no saint by any means and is as much in bed with corporate interests than most anyone else in Washington.

The first, in 1997, was a change to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of his or her home, up to $500,000. That change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It shifted our housing market from one of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.

The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it push for tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets? Alan Greenspan and Arthur Levitt, then the chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively, and Clinton's Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, all counseled against it to varying degrees. No action was taken.

But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings loudest today was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which effectively had split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.

articles.moneycentral.msn.com...

There it is in a nutshell.

Clinton unleashed corporate and trans-national corporate power to insane proportions.

reply to post by David9176


Why is everyone so against NAFTA. The only problem with it is the unions, high taxes and all the environmental and OSHA regulations mostly forced on us by the Liberals make us unable to compete with Mexico or any other manufacturing country for that matter.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft

We didnt attack Saudi Arabia because AlQueda leadership does not reside in Saudi Arabia. If they had they would have had the good sense to turn them over to us and war could have been averted.

I know AL Queda leadership doesn't reside there....but I thought we should invade any country that benefits us for oil? It's all about Oil as you said. Why keep buying it when we can control it ourselves.

One reason we are in Iraq is because they broke the cease fire agreement countless times. Maybe if Sadaam didnt running around claiming to have WMD's and threatening to use them until right up before the war began we wouldnt have been able to make that claim.

You're making excuses for the Bush administration. Why? Iraq's army was nothing and they were never a real threat to our military. We had them by the balls and they knew it. All Saddam could do was make threats because that's ALL HE HAD. If anything he quelled the terrorist threat as he had a stranglehold on his country.

It was never about freeing Iraqi's and it never will be.

reply to post by David9176


I agree it was never about freeing Iraq and Bush should have never said that because he hamstrung the military by trying to make the majority of the enemy our friends. It was a stupid political move on his part.

I have never once said it was all about oil. You said that or implied it from something that I didnt mean that way.

If Sadaam didnt want his ass kicked then he should have STFU and behaved after we beat him down the first time. His actions and his big mouth is what brought this on to the Iraqi people. That is where the blame lies.

That is just like most of the other Arab leaders. They have no real military power but they run around threatening everyone and acting all tough and they run and hide once someone gets fed up with it and calls their bluff. Maybe instead of running their mouths they might try to help build up their nation and their people so they might become a developed nation instead of a bunch of sheep herders.


[edit on 7/30/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft

Why is everyone so against NAFTA. The only problem with it is the unions, high taxes and all the environmental and OSHA regulations mostly forced on us by the Liberals make us unable to compete with Mexico or any other manufacturing country for that matter.

Who are you man? I can't believe your stances on these issues.

We have an average of 2 percent tax on imports. TWO PERCENT. Why do you think big business has left and went multi-national? Because they can make more money with cheap labor in other countries. Now that these companies no longer have interests only in the US, laws being passed in Congress never benefit REAL people...and if it does it's not how it was originally intended becase of lobbyists.

Companies are considered to have the same rights as individuals ehich is WRONG as they have the money to influence legislation and individual people DO NOT.

reply to post by David9176


I am a realist. Face it, whether we like it or not we live in a global economy. Over taxation, labor unions, environmental laws, and OSHA make us unable to compete in the global marketplace. There are so many restrictions and overregulation on businesses in the USA that nobody in their right mind would manufacture anything in this country. There are very few companies that want to move jobs overseas, but in order to not go out of business they are forced too. It is the lesser of two evils.

Furthermore, if we put a bunch of tariffs on imports what good does it do. They will just turn around and raise tariffs on our products coming into their country. So the only net effect is that the consumer pays more for what they get.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft

Furthermore, if we put a bunch of tariffs on imports what good does it do. They will just turn around and raise tariffs on our products coming into their country. So the only net effect is that the consumer pays more for what they get.

Do you think the rest of the world has a 2 percent tariff on their imports? Better yet, how many countries import more than they export?

See the problem yet? There is no protection for american workers. NONE. I lost my last job because of NAFTA. My company made money too, but the STOCK HOLDERS wanted to relocate to mexico FOR CHEAPER LABOR.

What do you believe in? The only thing I've seen from you so far is a politically charged argument.

Are you for the American people...or are you for corporate power...the same power that controls OUR GOVERNMENT?

reply to post by David9176


Well I do agree that it is foolish to import more than we export. I dont understand it. I have read and listened to many economists who say there is no negative effect, but that just defies common sense for me.

Sorry you lost your job. I know how that sucks. Maybe your company was looking forward and realized how they wouldnt be able to compete long term unless they moved or maybe they wanted to do their job and increase return on investment for their shareholders.

I am for the American people, but I believe the best thing for America is to get rid of the unions, reduce some of the regulations, drastically shrink the government, and drastically reduce taxes. We need business and business needs us so I am for both. We cant live without manufacuring, in my opinion we cannot continue as a service only economy forever.

We need to do everything we can to support the success of businesses of all sizes in this country. We need to enforce the regulations that are important and remove the ones that are not. We have tons of regulation, but they seem to only enforce the ones they want around here.

The GOP talks a good game on fiscal conservatism & small government, but historically they haven't practiced it much, if at all. Every Republican President after Eisenhower presided over large increases in the scope & size of the federal .gov.

They need to split the militarists and religious zealots off into their own party, and the rest could join forces with the Libertarians.

Then they might get my vote again.


As for our military spending, it as largely not been spent on the defense of the United States. For the last 54 years, it has mostly been spent on expanding our global power, not defending ourselves. Both the GOP and the Democrats have participated in that - even since the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

Would you kindly explain to me the unfunded war on terrorism the last 8 years then?

Better yet, could you explain the debt that was created under Reagan as well?

Do these not count to you or are you willing to set them aside to fit your own political bias?

You point is basically worthless if You ask me. How can You stay out of debt if the FED issues currency to the government at interest. So it doesn't matter how much the idiots from both parties spend because the number will always get larger.

reply to post by jkm1864

You point is basically worthless if You ask me. How can You stay out of debt if the FED issues currency to the government at interest. So it doesn't matter how much the idiots from both parties spend because the number will always get larger.

You think I don't know what the Federal Reserve does? None of this can be fixed without the fed being transparent. The fed paying the banks to not lend money is obviously a problem than needs to be taken care of. I'm highly outspoken against the federal reserve.....which once again....empowers the most powerful and saps the wealth of the middle class and anyone else who is stuck using this system.

An audit is a necessity.

Those are the two main problems. The Fed and major trans-national corporations. The fed can continue to inflate our currency and it will not have the same effect to those at the top as it does to everyone else.

Until they are reigned in...well all arguments are pretty much pointless because they won't matter in the end.

The political system is broken and until we can get politicians who will start to reform these things nothing will change.

An audit of the fed may happen...and it may be the domino that starts a real change in how things are going.

reply to post by xmotex

As for our military spending, it as largely not been spent on the defense of the United States. For the last 54 years, it has mostly been spent on expanding our global power, not defending ourselves. Both the GOP and the Democrats have participated in that - even since the fall of the Soviet Bloc.

Agreed. What I found funny was the OP's claim that Bush only increased the deficit 400 million dollars until tarp came along.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I guess he doesn't realize that Bush did not include our war spending in his budget....and he conveniently forgot about Bush's 2 stimulus packages...prescription drugs...etc.

Laughable....actually...not laughable...sad.

reply to post by David9176


I stand corrected. It was 2.8 trillion, including TARP. Here are the actual Bush numbers, and lets not forget that these numbers include the cost of 2 UNEXPECTED wars lasting for most of his Presidency as well as the UNEXPECTED results of Hurricane Katrina.

Bush Surplus/Deficit Fiscal Years 2001-2008 (billions of dollars)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Statistics
2001 128.2
2002 -157.8
2003 -377.6
2004 -412.7
2005 -318.3
2006 -248.2
2007 -160.7
2008 -454.8
TARP -750.0
Total -2751.9

This looks bad, but look what Obama will do JUST THIS YEAR.

the total deficit for FY 2009/10 is $3.617 trillion

This number doesnt even factor in Heath Care Reform or the effects of Cap and Trade possibly passing.

Source



[edit on 7/31/2009 by grapesofraft]

reply to post by grapesofraft


We're 10 trillion in debt, you say? But we had a nice surplus going back at the start of 2001.

What oh what did the evil nasty democrats do with all that money after Al Gore stepped into the oval- OH WAIT!

[edit on 31-7-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Unexpected. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Really. Which world do YOU live in? the World of Warcraft? There was NOTHING unexpected about EITHER of those wars. Hindsight is 20/20 baby. Hush. Really, just hush before you embarrass yourself further.

reply to post by grapesofraft


Oh, by the way?

The Taliban offered to turn Bin Ladin over to us. We refused. Basically, Bush was gonna go kick someone's ass for some reason, and the Taliban had the ill fortune of wearing a turban at the time.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by grapesofraft

 

We're 10 trillion in debt, you say? But we had a nice surplus going back at the start of 2001.

What oh what did the evil nasty democrats do with all that money after Al Gore stepped into the oval- OH WAIT!

[edit on 31-7-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

You obviously do not understand how it works. We were in debt in 2001 too, we just had a surplus for the year, meaning we took in more money n taxes then we spent in that year. It would be like you still have a $300k mortgage, but after you paid the payments and all of the rest of your bills you had a little left over to put in savings. You still owe the bank $300k but you have $500 in your savings account now.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Wrong again. The Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden.

Defying new military warnings from the United States and Britain on Tuesday, Afghanistan's Taliban government again refused to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden and disregarded the American threat to its regime.

Source