Liberal

[UNTFan23]

Or we need to need to spend less and pay off our debts. I dislike the idea that you have to raise taxes to pay off debt. I don't get to just increase my income if I get into debt.

I don't see this government ever getting rid of any government sponsored program. The fact our government is considering a 3rd stimulus package (1 under Bush, 2 under Obama) only highlights our government's spend happy tendencies.

[yyz28]

Nope... Everyone knows who was President when this economic mess started... It will be expensive to recover from it plus after the 5000+ DOW drop, the capitol gains are now nearly non-existant on tax forms which mean a lot less taxes will be collected as well... plus we have more un-employment expenses now as a result.... By collecting less taxes and having more expensives --- of course the debt will rise... We all know when this started...

I'm looking for a response to how you feel about the the President's job regarding the specific issues I posted on the first page of this thread. I don't really care about the talking points, as they have been hashed and argued to the n'th degree.

[forevereagle]

I don't see the American people ever getting rid of any credit cards and bad spending habits. The fact that people are considering another mortgage and 2 new credit cards (1 under Bush, 2 under Obama) only highlights people's spend happy tendencies.

Altered to apply to the American mindset.

So what you are saying is I am proposing a radical new approach to debt resolution.

[UNTFan23]

So what you are saying is I am proposing a radical new approach to debt resolution.

As it relates to our federal government - yes.

Edited January 11, 2010 by UNTFan23

[hickoryhouse]

Altered to apply to the American mindset.

So what you are saying is I am proposing a radical new approach to debt resolution.

As it relates to any personal debt resolution.... yes.

Only the government doesn't seem to face any consequences for theirs, be they republican spending or democrat or both. At least as citizens we have to worry about foreclosure and bankruptcy etc if we let our personal spending get out of hand.

Edited January 11, 2010 by hickoryhouse

[eulessismore]

With the debt out of control, unemployement at new highs, stimulus packages, congressional payoffs to pass bills and future admendments, health care estimated taking up to one-sixth of our gnp ......

....my question.....

where has all the liberal democratic supporters of these measures melted away to on the gmg board?? the dems did state, quite clearly, that they were going to pass these measures.......

how do ya'll feel now about these measures??? do ya'll still support them or are you having second/third/fourth thoughts about the consequences they will impose or have imposed??

Too busy working. And nobody here changes anybody's mind about anything. You don't care about my politics and I don't care about yours. I just joined GMG because I thought, mistakenly, that Todd Dodge would bring winning football to North Texas. If you have anything to say that would convince me that I was right about that, which isn't simply your opinion, I'll venture my opinion on something else.

[UNTflyer]

Nope... Everyone knows who was President when this economic mess started... It will be expensive to recover from it plus after the 5000+ DOW drop, the capitol gains are now nearly non-existant on tax forms which mean a lot less taxes will be collected as well... plus we have more un-employment expenses now as a result.... By collecting less taxes and having more expensives --- of course the debt will rise... We all know when this started...

You say collecting less taxes like it is a bad thing.

I pointed out before, many times... Presidents can do little to affect the economy. Congress has much more power than the President in this area, and even they don't have much of an impact.

And when people blame any economic crises on the government, it reveals their ignorance of how economics work. Of course, everyone knows what comprises the GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + (e - i)

C (consumer spending) is 70% of the economy. I (investing) is about 16%. G (government spending) is about 20%. The trade deficit/surplus (e -i) makes up the rest.

I will say it again - Bush didn't cause it, Obama can't fix it, and to say otherwise is a political parlor trick trying to distract you from the sober reality that nobody can do a thing about it until people feel good about spending again.

If you can put any blame in the area of government, it is the mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie and the failure of exotic mortgages pushed by every administration since Jimmy Carter that caused the credit markets to freeze up. I have challenged you several times to say specifically what Bush did to cause this economic crisis, and every time you simply ignore my challenge. Then about a month or so later, you pop up again with these same ridiculous claims. And I say this with Mean Green Love... Put up or shut up.

[eulesseagle]

Too busy working. And nobody here changes anybody's mind about anything. You don't care about my politics and I don't care about yours. I just joined GMG because I thought, mistakenly, that Todd Dodge would bring winning football to North Texas. If you have anything to say that would convince me that I was right about that, which isn't simply your opinion, I'll venture my opinion on something else.

Well, at least we agree on one thing....our politics. It really does not bother me if people have socialist tendancies and want government control over our lives. Quite a bit unconstiutional and a couple of wars were fought over that ideal. When government ceases to be a government "by the people" it ceases to be a democracy. I believe just the opposite of you and when you walk through the front door of my house the first thing you will see is my framed Barry Goldwater for President yard sign. "In your heart you know he's right."

You joined GMG for the right reasons.....you will see Coach Dodge win......but you can post those thoughts on the football side of gmg. I joined for the wrong reason.......my psychologist told me I could get well by participating in some delusional focus groups.

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

Ok, in all fairness, here's a short list of items I think were hot buttons in the election for many of the true libs, and would like a score card on how you think the president has done on them and why you feel that way. ...and I'm looking for response from folks who self identify as a liberal, not an independant.

1. The Healthcare Bill as currently structured, as best you understand it right now.

First of all, the man gets points from me for attempting to tackle such a complicated as healthcare reform. Even if you disagree with everything the man does, you have to admit its taking some big cajones (sp?) to take on something that, if it doesn't go right, will surely doom him to one term.

That being said, I would probably give him a 7 out of 10. I loved the direction he and Congress were going when the public option was on the table. My interest has waned since it was taken off the table in favor of required insurance coverage for all (an obvious result of heavy insurance lobbying). What would cause me to give him a 10? A health care system modeled after Canada, Britain, and France with more budgetary emphasis on efficiency and fraud control (a kick ass internal audit department can do wonders in any government entity, especially healthcare). A zero? Doing nothing.

2. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

Iraq - 6 - Glad that we've started to set time tables, but they seem a little long to me. Would have been nice if we weren't there to begin with. I thought #41 got it right the first time.

Afganistan - 7 - Also glad that he's stated that there won't be a "blank check" for us to stay there indefinitely. The sooner, the better.

3. The decision to try the 9/11 attackers in civillian/criminal courts.

Don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion. I'll pass on rating it.

4. The closing of (or the plans to close) Gitmo.

My rating - 9. Like it or not, that place has probably been the #1 recruiting tool for terrorist the last few years. I definitely would not be opposed to opening a similar facility on Alcatraz. Otherwise, I also don't take issue to detainees being housed here in the states if done in the proper location(s) (desolate areas).

I look forward to seeing your responses.

Well, there it is, like it or not. I probably could have gone off on rants supporting my opinions that would have made this 20 times longer, but I think that best left for conversational settings (not a fan of arguing by text).

Also, I consider myself a moderate liberal. Overall, he's still got my vote, but if the economy goes south again even after the bailouts and stimulus, I'll probably abstain from voting.

[eulessismore]

Well, at least we agree on one thing....our politics. It really does not bother me if people have socialist tendancies and want government control over our lives. Quite a bit unconstiutional and a couple of wars were fought over that ideal. When government ceases to be a government "by the people" it ceases to be a democracy. I believe just the opposite of you and when you walk through the front door of my house the first thing you will see is my framed Barry Goldwater for President yard sign. "In your heart you know he's right."

You joined GMG for the right reasons.....you will see Coach Dodge win......but you can post those thoughts on the football side of gmg. I joined for the wrong reason.......my psychologist told me I could get well by participating in some delusional focus groups.

As for Goldwater, I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't leave the Republican Party immediately when he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Hell, once we had the Interstate Highway system, it was too far off the highway for many to find those "separate but equal" restrooms. He mellowed in his later years though; as much as he spoke in favor of allowing gays to serve in his beloved military, I'm sure if he'd been around to see the gay bashing aspect of the modern "conservatives" he would have repeated his "I stayed where I was, they're the ones who moved" (further to the right). No, those calling themselves "convervative Republicans" are no more inclined to keep the government out of peoples' personal lives than self styled "liberal Democrats" are inclined to keep government out of the corporate boardroom.

As for Dodge, well I hope you turn out to be right about that one. Sometimes it's best when I turn out to be wrong. Have you ever experienced that?

[eulesseagle]

As for Goldwater, I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't leave the Republican Party immediately when he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Hell, once we had the Interstate Highway system, it was too far off the highway for many to find those "separate but equal" restrooms.

As for Dodge, well I hope you turn out to be right about that one. Sometimes it's best when I turn out to be wrong. Have you ever experienced that?

There were other democrats that voted against the 64 civil rights bill including Hubert H Humphry. It was not a party line vote. It was brought up many times, even by some democrats, that this bill violated the constitution for obvious reasons.......and.......you do not have to be a brain surgeon to figure them out.

I watch NT football win or lose.....it is just a game.....a diversion that in the big scheme of things really do not mount to a hill full of beans. It is fun to watch and I, like some of you, will always remember the favorite games.

[forevereagle]

Well, at least we agree on one thing....our politics. It really does not bother me if people have socialist tendancies and want government control over our lives. Quite a bit unconstiutional and a couple of wars were fought over that ideal. When government ceases to be a government "by the people" it ceases to be a democracy. I believe just the opposite of you and when you walk through the front door of my house the first thing you will see is my framed Barry Goldwater for President yard sign. "In your heart you know he's right."

You joined GMG for the right reasons.....you will see Coach Dodge win......but you can post those thoughts on the football side of gmg. I joined for the wrong reason.......my psychologist told me I could get well by participating in some delusional focus groups.

Just as a point of clarification, the US government is not a democracy, it is a representative republic with selection through a democratic vote. That is all.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You say collecting less taxes like it is a bad thing.

I pointed out before, many times... Presidents can do little to affect the economy. Congress has much more power than the President in this area, and even they don't have much of an impact.

And when people blame any economic crises on the government, it reveals their ignorance of how economics work. Of course, everyone knows what comprises the GDP.

GDP = C + I + G + (e - i)

C (consumer spending) is 70% of the economy. I (investing) is about 16%. G (government spending) is about 20%. The trade deficit/surplus (e -i) makes up the rest.

I will say it again - Bush didn't cause it, Obama can't fix it, and to say otherwise is a political parlor trick trying to distract you from the sober reality that nobody can do a thing about it until people feel good about spending again.

If you can put any blame in the area of government, it is the mismanagement of Fannie and Freddie and the failure of exotic mortgages pushed by every administration since Jimmy Carter that caused the credit markets to freeze up. I have challenged you several times to say specifically what Bush did to cause this economic crisis, and every time you simply ignore my challenge. Then about a month or so later, you pop up again with these same ridiculous claims. And I say this with Mean Green Love... Put up or shut up.

----Collecting less taxes this way is a bad thing (we are not taking tax decreases, just decreased income) ...... it means people are making less money.... I would have thought you would have understood we are not talking about tax rate.

---You are right about a President not being a huge factor in improving or wrecking the economy but they are partially .... I was in person at a confernece last week and heard a Goldman Sachs VP mention that Congress taking off many of the controls (passed during during the 1930's) on the financial community and Wall Street was a big factor in the problems we now have....too many foolish loans and investments occured after that as a result. Which group was in power of Congress when they were taken off... you know. I would think he would know what he was talking out... a pretty reliable sourse.

---Additional.... You likely had your withholding adjusted up a bit this year.... It does not mean you had a tax increase but instead you are prepaying more of your tax bill ...so when settle up time come next April (2011) you will owe less or else get more back than you would have otherwise. [ similiar idea to a larger down payment on an item...you owe less later ] . During the last decade withholding was dropped at times but the end tax bill for most people wasn't ...despite what some thought had happened. Nice way to make people think they got a cut when they didn't.

Edited January 12, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNTFan23]

----Collecting less taxes this way is a bad thing (we are not taking tax decreases, just decreased income) ...... it means people are making less money.... I would have thought you would have understood we are not talking about tax rate.

The idea behind cutting income taxes is that if people have more disposable income, they go and spend that extra cash burning a hole in their pocket. With the extra money being injected into the economy (and the government benefits from the extra sales and business income taxes collected), companies need to go and hire more people, which only increases your income taxes collected, and those extra people go out and spend their income and so forth and so on.

The one thing our government leaders didn't foresee is people trying to paying down on their debt and saving extra money at a record rate and not injecting that money into the economy. If people aren't going to use debt to drive purchase decisions, then we're in for a slooooooooow recovery in our economy. Given the American desire for instant gratification, it'll be interesting to see how long it takes for people to get impatient about a drawn out economic recovery.

Edited January 12, 2010 by UNTFan23

[Quoner]

I joined for the wrong reason.......my psychologist told me I could get well by participating in some delusional focus groups.

We've had our differences, but +1 sir.

[eulesseagle]

We've had our differences, but +1 sir.

Quoner, in the thirty seven years that we have been posting on this board.....i think this is the first time we have agreed......

[eulessismore]

You joined GMG for the right reasons.....you will see Coach Dodge win......but you can post those thoughts on the football side of gmg. I joined for the wrong reason.......my psychologist told me I could get well by participating in some delusional focus groups.

I hope you and your psychologist are both right.

[UNTflyer]

---You are right about a President not being a huge factor in improving or wrecking the economy but they are partially .... I was in person at a confernece last week and heard a Goldman Sachs VP mention that Congress taking off many of the controls (passed during during the 1930's) on the financial community and Wall Street was a big factor in the problems we now have....too many foolish loans and investments occured after that as a result. Which group was in power of Congress when they were taken off... you know. I would think he would know what he was talking out... a pretty reliable sourse.

Just because someone is a Goldman-Sachs VP doesn't make them smart or reliable... umm, didn't Goldman need a bailout?

Straight from Time magazine last year:

"The only major piece of regulatory legislation enacted during the Bush years was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which dramatically increased regulation of corporate financial disclosures. The really big regulatory changes being pointed to now as possible culprits for the crisis date back to Bush's predecessors: Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, even Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. So the popular Democratic refrain that "Bush-era deregulation" is to blame for our troubles is a little hard to square with the evidence.

What is true is that most Bush-era financial regulators were less than enthusiastic about the very act of regulating, and that Bush's "ownership society" push glossed over a lot of potential dangers. Bush didn't cause the financial regulatory breakdown, but he didn't jump in to fix it either.

Link

The article goes on to cite several factors that contributed to the economic recession: Iraq, budget deficits, our energy policy... but one area where most agree was NOT a problem (except Democrats with Bush Derangement Syndrome) is the mythical financial "de-regulation".

[KRAM1]

Just because someone is a Goldman-Sachs VP doesn't make them smart or reliable... umm, didn't Goldman need a bailout?

Straight from Time magazine last year:

"The only major piece of regulatory legislation enacted during the Bush years was the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which dramatically increased regulation of corporate financial disclosures. The really big regulatory changes being pointed to now as possible culprits for the crisis date back to Bush's predecessors: Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, even Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. So the popular Democratic refrain that "Bush-era deregulation" is to blame for our troubles is a little hard to square with the evidence.

What is true is that most Bush-era financial regulators were less than enthusiastic about the very act of regulating, and that Bush's "ownership society" push glossed over a lot of potential dangers. Bush didn't cause the financial regulatory breakdown, but he didn't jump in to fix it either.

Link

The article goes on to cite several factors that contributed to the economic recession: Iraq, budget deficits, our energy policy... but one area where most agree was NOT a problem (except Democrats with Bush Derangement Syndrome) is the mythical financial "de-regulation".

There you go again...with facts...shame on you...why cloud the issue with facts?

[GreenMachine]

Just because someone is a Goldman-Sachs VP doesn't make them smart or reliable... umm, didn't Goldman need a bailout?

Hay, eye wurk four a companie that tok a bailoute, r ewe saing eye am knot relible?

Edited January 13, 2010 by GreenMachine

[yyz28]

Well, there it is, like it or not. I probably could have gone off on rants supporting my opinions that would have made this 20 times longer, but I think that best left for conversational settings (not a fan of arguing by text).

Also, I consider myself a moderate liberal. Overall, he's still got my vote, but if the economy goes south again even after the bailouts and stimulus, I'll probably abstain from voting.

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree with some of your conclusions, but I won't argue them here... Thanks for taking the time to continue the conversation!

[UNTflyer]

Hay, eye wurk four a companie that tok a bailoute, r ewe saing eye am knot relible?

My point is more along the lines of, "Does Goldman not have an interest in laying the blame at Bush's feet?"

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The idea behind cutting income taxes is that if people have more disposable income, they go and spend that extra cash burning a hole in their pocket. With the extra money being injected into the economy (and the government benefits from the extra sales and business income taxes collected), companies need to go and hire more people, which only increases your income taxes collected, and those extra people go out and spend their income and so forth and so on.

The one thing our government leaders didn't foresee is people trying to paying down on their debt and saving extra money at a record rate and not injecting that money into the economy. If people aren't going to use debt to drive purchase decisions, then we're in for a slooooooooow recovery in our economy. Given the American desire for instant gratification, it'll be interesting to see how long it takes for people to get impatient about a drawn out economic recovery.

--You are absolutely correct..... but we can't have it both ways... The last reduction in taxes was a large contributing factor in the debt doubling between 2000-2008. Meanwhile our expenses increased.... largely because we decided we 'Needed" to Invade Iraq and then rebuild their schools, hospitals, roads etc. plus our military expenses of just being there. What do you want... ?? Less taxes and more debt (which many complain about also ) ...or... we could cut expensives by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan immediately .... but even that would not be enough..... or raise taxes which which no one wants.. [Can't spend more than we take in forever].... Pick what you want to complain about..... The expenses including Iraq and the debt..... or the tax rate which is used to fund our military etc. .... they are related...

---A lot of our economic problems are due to the fact that people spent too much money...buying things they really could not afford... and banks making crazy loans to people who would be in trouble if the economy slipped some.... which is exactly what happened and always does to some extent... This time it was worse because so many people owed so much [especially real estate that they really did not need... vacation condos, huge homes, etc. ] largely due to crazy financial policies that was allowed after so many controls were taken off the financial community in recent years. These people are just trying to survive, pay debts down, and just are buying what they need now which hurts current sales. There are no easy answers to the stupid actions that occurred...individually or government-wise..

PS: How do you cut taxes and at the same time reduce the debt...?? Both now are a huge problem... As you said any extra money people have in their pocket due to a tax cut will just go to everyday expenses or pay debts or into savings .... and increase our government debt problem tdue to less money taken in. Unemployment greatly reduces what income tax will be paid and the 2008 drop in the DOW pretty much eliminates any income taxes from capitol gains as well (big contribitors to debt problem at the present) . This administration inherited a huge problem. ... good luck to them... we need to hope they have some success... to wish bad luck is wishing bad luck on America and just cutting off the nose to spite the face. Don't be just political... too much is at stake. Hope our government (and people) have learned.. when you have surpluses pay down debt...so when tough times come... things will not be so bad.

Finally...good luck to Haiti... a poor ignorant country with even less luck.... hurricanes and an extremely high birth rate is bad enough and now this happens... Our situation is great compared to theirs.

Edited January 14, 2010 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KingDL1]

--You are absolutely correct..... but we can't have it both ways... The last reduction in taxes was a large contributing factor in the debt doubling between 2000-2008. Meanwhile our expenses increased.... largely because we decided we 'Needed" to Invade Iraq and then rebuild their schools, hospitals, roads etc. plus our military expenses of just being there. What do you want... ?? Less taxes and more debt (which many complain about also ) ...or... we could cut expensives by leaving Iraq and Afghanistan immediately .... but even that would not be enough..... or raise taxes which which no one wants.. [Can't spend more than we take in forever].... Pick what you want to complain about..... The expenses including Iraq and the debt..... or the tax rate which is used to fund our military etc. .... they are related...

---A lot of our economic problems are due to the fact that people spent too much money...buying things they really could not afford... and banks making crazy loans to people who would be in trouble if the economy slipped some.... which is exactly what happened and always does to some extent... This time it was worse because so many people owed so much [especially real estate that they really did not need... vacation condos, huge homes, etc. ] largely due to crazy financial policies that was allowed after so many controls were taken off the financial community in recent years. These people are just trying to survive, pay debts down, and just are buying what they need now which hurts current sales. There are no easy answers to the stupid actions that occurred...individually or government-wise..

PS: How do you cut taxes and at the same time reduce the debt...?? Both now are a huge problem... As you said any extra money people have in their pocket due to a tax cut will just go to everyday expenses or pay debts or into savings .... and increase our government debt problem tdue to less money taken in. Unemployment greatly reduces what income tax will be paid and the 2008 drop in the DOW pretty much eliminates any income taxes from capitol gains as well (big contribitors to debt problem at the present) . This administration inherited a huge problem. ... good luck to them... we need to hope they have some success... to wish bad luck is wishing bad luck on America and just cutting off the nose to spite the face. Don't be just political... too much is at stake. Hope our government (and people) have learned.. when you have surpluses pay down debt...so when tough times come... things will not be so bad.

Finally...good luck to Haiti... a poor ignorant country with even less luck.... hurricanes and an extremely high birth rate is bad enough and now this happens... Our situation is great compared to theirs.

The statement in bold shows you either don't understand the US economy or you just don't listen. Maybe Flyer will mess with you.

[UNTFan23]

PS: How do you cut taxes and at the same time reduce the debt...??

Cut.

Government.

Spending.

I know, I know, it's pretty radical stuff I'm suggesting, but it just might work in being able to lower taxes and reduce the debt at the same time.