Metal Sludge Gossip Board

This could be fun. Everyone is criticizing Democrats and Obama for not doing enough this first year but Republicans, as far as I can tell have done NOTHING, other than obstruct, whine, lie, and say NO NO NO.

Seriously, name ONE POSITIVE thing Republicans can point to.



I can only think of only one. They didn't filibuster aid to Haiti.

I can name 3 more things!

Their main 2012 contender quit her day gig, & wrote a book to her choir, & became a Fair & Balanced reporter.

Won an election in MA that may signal the end of Camelot?

What would you like them to do? They're incapable of getting anything through either house of Congress. At least they don't get in eachother's way of passing legislation.

I love it. You guys are getting all bent out of shape because of the failure of the Obama admin (thusfar) so you're turning it back around on the Republicans. Sorry guys. This one's on you. You wanted a new driver, well, you've got the wheel.

JakeYonkel wrote:What would you like them to do? They're incapable of getting anything through either house of Congress. At least they don't get in eachother's way of passing legislation.

I love it. You guys are getting all bent out of shape because of the failure of the Obama admin (thusfar) so you're turning it back around on the Republicans. Sorry guys. This one's on you. You wanted a new driver, well, you've got the wheel.

Jake, you voted for Obama. Just sayin'.

And therefore by Ugmo's logic I have even MORE right to bitch, technically.

enter your username wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:What would you like them to do?

First, take responsibility for the mess created by a libertarian approach to financial regulation. Second, come up with solutions that are supported by facts and make economic sense. When a recession is caused by people saving instead of spending, the solution is for the government to borrow money from the savers and spend it.

That's funny, I thought the current mess was from people getting credit to buy houses that they couldn't afford. I mean, wasn't that the "housing bubble" problem? And, while we're discussing THAT, lets not forget who was the sitting president that encouraged THAT fiasco to happen. (if you 'forgot', it was Clinton)

Instead, they propose a spending cut and a tax cut. Spending cut increases unemployment.

ONLY if the government is the only one hiring. Government doesn't CREATE a single fucking job, unless it's expanding it's role on individuals lives. Oh, I know you're going to say that public works projects don't do that, but they aren't sustainable jobs to begin with.

Look at the states as they cut spending and fire teachers etc.

Come on now, you know as well as I do that STATE spending and FEDERAL spending are two different animals. TOTALLY.

They say tax cuts are the solution but unemployment increased for 2 years after Reagan's 1981 tax cut

Who's 'they'? Are YOU they? because if you're THEY, then You're a liar. Unemployment peaked in 82. (at a lower level than it is at now) and dropped to an average of 7.5% over the course of the rest of his Presidency. So, that pretty much shits in your cereal bowl as far as "cut taxes and unemployment grows" goes.

and for 2 years after Bush's 2001 tax cut.

NO, unemployment after the Bush tax cuts grew by .3% in the first year after the tax cuts, then returned to the 2001 levels. So basically, over the course of two years, there was no real net effect. THEN dropped to a low of 4.4% (down from a high of 6%). So, your theory is indeed full of shit.

Tax cuts aren''t creating jobs today for the same reason an interest rate cut is ineffective. People want to save and the banks don't want to lend money.

The government spending billions of dollars is NOT going to make people want to spend money, when at least 15% are either unemployed, or working only a part time job. People don't have money to spend, and that means the economy stalls.

In short, grow a sack and own up to your mistakes instead of recommending more of the same (tax cuts and less government).

[/quote]

In short, do some fucking research before you regurgitate some 'we must tax and spend' liberal nonesense.

VinnieKulick wrote:

enter your username wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:What would you like them to do?

First, take responsibility for the mess created by a libertarian approach to financial regulation. Second, come up with solutions that are supported by facts and make economic sense. When a recession is caused by people saving instead of spending, the solution is for the government to borrow money from the savers and spend it.

That's funny, I thought the current mess was from people getting credit to buy houses that they couldn't afford. I mean, wasn't that the "housing bubble" problem? And, while we're discussing THAT, lets not forget who was the sitting president that encouraged THAT fiasco to happen. (if you 'forgot', it was Clinton)

Instead, they propose a spending cut and a tax cut. Spending cut increases unemployment.

ONLY if the government is the only one hiring. Government doesn't CREATE a single fucking job, unless it's expanding it's role on individuals lives. Oh, I know you're going to say that public works projects don't do that, but they aren't sustainable jobs to begin with.

Look at the states as they cut spending and fire teachers etc.

Come on now, you know as well as I do that STATE spending and FEDERAL spending are two different animals. TOTALLY.

They say tax cuts are the solution but unemployment increased for 2 years after Reagan's 1981 tax cut

Who's 'they'? Are YOU they? because if you're THEY, then You're a liar. Unemployment peaked in 82. (at a lower level than it is at now) and dropped to an average of 7.5% over the course of the rest of his Presidency. So, that pretty much shits in your cereal bowl as far as "cut taxes and unemployment grows" goes.

and for 2 years after Bush's 2001 tax cut.

NO, unemployment after the Bush tax cuts grew by .3% in the first year after the tax cuts, then returned to the 2001 levels. So basically, over the course of two years, there was no real net effect. THEN dropped to a low of 4.4% (down from a high of 6%). So, your theory is indeed full of shit.

Tax cuts aren''t creating jobs today for the same reason an interest rate cut is ineffective. People want to save and the banks don't want to lend money.

The government spending billions of dollars is NOT going to make people want to spend money, when at least 15% are either unemployed, or working only a part time job. People don't have money to spend, and that means the economy stalls.

In short, grow a sack and own up to your mistakes instead of recommending more of the same (tax cuts and less government).

In short, do some fucking research before you regurgitate some 'we must tax and spend' liberal nonesense.[/quote]


You do realize that both parties want huge government, right ?

The only difference is, one side knows the other will never vote for them so they pay lip service to not wanting bigger government to get THAT vote.

YourMomma wrote: Did you see what was in the health care bill? They tried. And failed. Again.

SHHHHH! *psst* Wanna know a secret?



When Obama doesn't renew the Bush tax cuts, that will lead to higher taxes. But, you didn't hear it from me.

VinnieKulick wrote:When Obama doesn't renew the Bush tax cuts, that will lead to higher taxes. But, you didn't hear it from me.

More paranoia from Vinnie Kulick.

Somebody has to pay for that navy that you served in, & the roads that we drive on, & the services we all depend on.

Isn't it true that the US pays lower overall taxes than most other industrialized countries in the world?

Australia: 17-45%
Austria: 21%-50%
Belgium: 25-50%
China: 5-45%
Denmark: 38-59%
France: 5.5-40%
Germany: 14-45%
Greece: 0-40%
Ireland: 20-41%
Israel: 10-46%
Italy: 23%-43%
Japan: 5-50%
Morocco: 0-41.5%
Netherlands: 0-52%
New Zealand: 0-39%
Norway: 28-49%
Portugal: 0-42%
Slovenia: 16%-41%
South Africa: 0-40%
Spain: 24-43%
Sweden: 0-57%
Taiwan: 6-40%
U.S.: 15-35%
U.K.: 0-40%

JakeYonkel wrote:You guys are getting all bent out of shape because of the failure of the Obama admin (thusfar) so you're turning it back around on the Republicans. Sorry guys. This one's on you. You wanted a new driver, well, you've got the wheel.

Laugh out fucking loud.

"this ones on you"

For the 15,000th time...

JAKE YONKEL VOTED FOR OBAMA

Seriously? You think that with people NOT having jobs, or not having enough money to make ends meet, the ideal way to make their lives better, is to tax them more?

And, it's not paranoia, it's fact. Obama has promised to not renew the tax cuts, which means everybody's taxes GOES UP.

Point out all the other nations in the world you want, I don't live in any of them. So, what they pay for their taxes doesn't effect me.

Move overseas and work there, and enjoy your "free" stuff the government "gives" you in exchange for 1/2 of your pay.

pooldude wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote:When Obama doesn't renew the Bush tax cuts, that will lead to higher taxes. But, you didn't hear it from me.

More paranoia from Vinnie Kulick.

Somebody has to pay for that navy that you served in, & the roads that we drive on, & the services we all depend on.

Isn't it true that the US pays lower overall taxes than most other industrialized countries in the world?

Australia: 17-45%
Austria: 21%-50%
Belgium: 25-50%
China: 5-45%
Denmark: 38-59%
France: 5.5-40%
Germany: 14-45%
Greece: 0-40%
Ireland: 20-41%
Israel: 10-46%
Italy: 23%-43%
Japan: 5-50%
Morocco: 0-41.5%
Netherlands: 0-52%
New Zealand: 0-39%
Norway: 28-49%
Portugal: 0-42%
Slovenia: 16%-41%
South Africa: 0-40%
Spain: 24-43%
Sweden: 0-57%
Taiwan: 6-40%
U.S.: 15-35%
U.K.: 0-40%

Help me out with understanding your POV on something PDude. You live in one of the highest taxed states in the country, one that also happens to be bankrupt. You seem to think those kind of policies should be enjoyed by the rest of us? Is this a misery loves company thing?

bane wrote:Help me out with understanding your POV on something PDude. You live in one of the highest taxed states in the country, one that also happens to be bankrupt. You seem to think those kind of policies should be enjoyed by the rest of us? Is this a misery loves company thing?

No Bane, I certainly would like to see responsible belt tightening on everybody's part, both government & personal, just like I myself have been doing the last several years.

And I am well aware of CA's financial problems, & wish both sides could work together to achieve more positive results.

But the fact remains, we in the US pay lower overall taxes than most other industrialized nations, & we have to man up & pay our bills, too.

The Republicans & Tea Party crowd hate paying taxes for what they describe as wasteful or frivolous items...but I didn't hear many of them offering to pay for the Iraq fiasco, either.

If we want to stop waste...good. I'm in favor.

But we also have to pay our bills, & the gung-ho Neo-Cons helped create a lot of our current debt, as well.

Thru very hard work I became 100% debt free last year, & I'm very careful with my finances. I think that's a worthy goal for everyone.

Crazy Levi wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:You guys are getting all bent out of shape because of the failure of the Obama admin (thusfar) so you're turning it back around on the Republicans. Sorry guys. This one's on you. You wanted a new driver, well, you've got the wheel.

Laugh out fucking loud.

"this ones on you"

For the 15,000th time...

JAKE YONKEL VOTED FOR OBAMA

Laugh out fucking loud.

I'm neither a liberal nor a Democrat.

You lose.

pooldude wrote:

bane wrote:Help me out with understanding your POV on something PDude. You live in one of the highest taxed states in the country, one that also happens to be bankrupt. You seem to think those kind of policies should be enjoyed by the rest of us? Is this a misery loves company thing?

No Bane, I certainly would like to see responsible belt tightening on everybody's part, both government & personal, just like I myself have been doing the last several years.

And I am well aware of CA's financial problems, & wish both sides could work together to achieve more positive results.

But the fact remains, we in the US pay lower overall taxes than most other industrialized nations, & we have to man up & pay our bills, too.

The Republicans & Tea Party crowd hate paying taxes for what they describe as wasteful or frivolous items...but I didn't hear many of them offering to pay for the Iraq fiasco, either.

If we want to stop waste...good. I'm in favor.

But we also have to pay our bills, & the gung-ho Neo-Cons helped create a lot of our current debt, as well.

Thru very hard work I became 100% debt free last year, & I'm very careful with my finances. I think that's a worthy goal for everyone.

No disagreement when it comes to lowering the deficit. I was never a proponent of the GOP's doing it anymore than I am the dems, and personally, I don't have problem with a small tax increase if it would go to that end. I don't have a problem with reversing the tax breaks for the uber rich either. The claim that taxes won't be raised for the middle class is absolute bullshit. We may not see an income tax increase, but you can bet your ass that we'll be paying it in other more hidden ways. The problem as I see it is that the current admin's focus doesn't seem to have anything to do with lowering the deficit. They're adding to it, even worse than the last one did. Your comments here have consistently been in support of most of the things the admin seems to want, so which is it? Are we going to tighten our belts or are we going to implement more expensive social programs and raise it? Taxes will be going up either way.

pooldude wrote: But the fact remains, we in the US pay lower overall taxes than most other industrialized nations, & we have to man up & pay our bills, too.

The problem isn't PAYING OUR BILLS, the problem is SPENDING TOO MUCH.

The Republicans & Tea Party crowd hate paying taxes for what they describe as wasteful or frivolous items...but I didn't hear many of them offering to pay for the Iraq fiasco, either.

I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you've never BEEN to a Tea Party event.
Those who believe in FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY and FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. They also want LESS GOVERNMENT in their lives. And, I hate to point it out to you, since I know you won't believe it, but the majority of the GOP voters didn't want the massive government expansion that occurred under Bush, since you know, he ran on a limited government platform in 2000.

But we also have to pay our bills, & the gung-ho Neo-Cons helped create a lot of our current debt, as well.

I'm going to go out on a limb here again, and wager that you don't know what the TRUE definition of NEO-CON is.
(It revolves around being progressive in foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, and overall personal independence. )
Not to mention, there was only a two year window where Bush and the 'NEO-CON' controlled Congress, then the 'progressive liberals' got into office and BAM, our deficit soars. Coincidence?

Thru very hard work I became 100% debt free last year, & I'm very careful with my finances. I think that's a worthy goal for everyone.

Well, if you are careful with your finances, then you are already ahead of the game, and ahead of the people in power in Washington right now.

bane wrote: Your comments here have consistently been in support of most of the things the admin seems to want, so which is it? Are we going to tighten our belts or are we going to implement more expensive social programs and raise it? Taxes will be going up either way.

I look @ stimulus spending as short term medicine.

The medicine can be helpful while you're sick, but detrimental if not discontinued when no longer needed.

It's an inexact science to know exactly when to apply the brakes, or when to apply more fuel.

If you study the role of the Federal Banking system, as I have been while working on my new CA Real Estate license... (apologies to Vinnie, who "doubts that I think" )

http://iboard.alliedschools.com/Uploade ... 5b7472.pdf

...starting back in the days of Hamilton, & going forward thru the various recessions & depressions of the 19th & 20th centuries...

http://iboard.alliedschools.com/Uploade ... 404083.pdf

..you will see that even the experts sometimes get it wrong, & that we're constantly in a push-pull power struggle to maintain financial equilibrium.

The real wealth in the US is based around real estate & financing. I believe the current tax crunch has more to do with the real estate crash than it has to do with whether the tax rate varies by a few %.

The unemployment rate has more to do with the most recent real estate bubble bursting than it does with Republicans or Democrats holding power.

We're in a down cycle that will eventually reverse itself. And that's why I see no benefit to be gained from partisan hyperbole.

I'm not talking about the stimulus specifically. That was going to happen regardless of who was in power. I'm on the fence on whether we really needed it or not, and I'm positive that a huge chunk of it is unnecessary pork, but whatever, it's a done deal, but the admin has other big plans that will cost big money. Healthcare reform was one of them. I agree that reform is needed, but I'm not all that crazy about a trillion plus dollar social fix while the country is completely broke. Maybe instead of trying to pass an "equitable" healthcare bill in the middle of the worst financial crises since the Great Depression, they should pass one that addresses the escalating cost without adding more burden to the taxpayer?

I have no argument with your reasonable approach, Bane.

I disagree more with folks on either side who are completely convinced they have all the answers, even when their own house is in disarray.

JakeYonkel wrote:And therefore by Ugmo's logic I have even MORE right to bitch, technically.

I was gonna say that on the other thread... that being said, I haven't noticed you going on and on about Obama's "broken promises" or "lies" - maybe you have, but I don't recall it.

What Bush-era tax decreases are we talking about?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/152152/941

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655553728965955.html

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that these tax increases aren't going to affect many sludgers.

Wait for it...

VinnieKulick wrote: That's funny, I thought the current mess was from people getting credit to buy houses that they couldn't afford.

Hahaha, not this crap again.

Most of the big banks were ALREADY in trouble for funding mismanagement before they extended that credit. The housing bubble wasn't caused by bad loans, it was caused by the real estate industry inflating real property values.

chickenona wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote: That's funny, I thought the current mess was from people getting credit to buy houses that they couldn't afford.

Hahaha, not this crap again.

Most of the big banks were ALREADY in trouble for funding mismanagement before they extended that credit. The housing bubble wasn't caused by bad loans, it was caused by the real estate industry inflating real property values.

You know, I'm going to agree with Vinnie a bit here. Sure it takes two to tango, and it's astonishing how much credit the banks were willing to give people, but still, people still should have been a bit more responsible about their borrowing. I remember a thread on Sludge a couple of years back about how much debt people had. One guy had like 150,000 bucks worth of debt and was like "Eh, no big deal, that's normal."

That being said, people are dumb. Dubya got elected twice. But the banks should be expected to conduct themselves a little more prudently than Joe Sixpack.

chickenona wrote:

VinnieKulick wrote: That's funny, I thought the current mess was from people getting credit to buy houses that they couldn't afford.

Hahaha, not this crap again.

Most of the big banks were ALREADY in trouble for funding mismanagement before they extended that credit. The housing bubble wasn't caused by bad loans, it was caused by the real estate industry inflating real property values.

So, when Clinton 'urged' congress to push banks to loan to underqualified, or unqualified people, it was the banks fault?

If the real estate industry said a $50,000 house was worth $80,000 it doesn't really matter, IF the person getting the loan could afford $80,000 to PAY for it. It's when the adjustable rate mortgages had the balloon payments and doubled and people could no longer afford their mortgage that the market started to collapse.

tin00can wrote:What Bush-era tax decreases are we talking about?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/22/152152/941

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655553728965955.html

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that these tax increases aren't going to affect many sludgers.

Wait for it...

Good job! You found TWO articles that talk about those making over $250,000 a year! Did you find any about how the Bush tax cuts gave the average family a tax bill around $2,000 less than it was before?

Or bringing back the death tax? Or upping the capital gains tax?

Again, it wasn't the "tax break for the rich" that caused all of this problem, it was OVERSPENDING.

Well, if it wasn't the "tax break for the rich" that caused this mess, why do you keep bringing up increased taxes? And yes, I do agree that overspending caused this mess, as usual.

As for banks being "forced" to make loans...again, I'm curious to see proof that banks were truly forced to make them. Seriously, I'd like for somebody to point that out to me, other than saying the "urging" was there. I'd like to see where there were banks that genuinely didn't want to make the loans but were forced by the government - either overtly or covertly - to make them.

are there words in this thread?

ROADHEAD wrote:are there words in this thread?

For once, I agree with your post! Well done.

tin00can wrote:Well, if it wasn't the "tax break for the rich" that caused this mess, why do you keep bringing up increased taxes? And yes, I do agree that overspending caused this mess, as usual.

Because both of the links that you posted, only talked about the taxes that effected the rich, and not the taxes that have helped everybody making LESS than the rich do.

As for banks being "forced" to make loans...again, I'm curious to see proof that banks were truly forced to make them. Seriously, I'd like for somebody to point that out to me, other than saying the "urging" was there. I'd like to see where there were banks that genuinely didn't want to make the loans but were forced by the government - either overtly or covertly - to make them.

I'll dig it up for you, busy watching the game right now.

One thing I've noticed on Sludge lately from the Liberals is words and phrases like "our share" when talking about what happens in other countries and America's role.


Not trying to sound like a dick, but you people DO realize that we have different nations and dont all live under the same flag....right?

just saying, to bring up ANY other nation's tax rates makes no sense at all. It's actually a threadjack when you do that.