President Obama. Model for good spending. GM

President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please?

If I need say more, the U S population is not very intelligent.

Regards
DL

At 3/10/2012 11:38:25 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
President Obama. Model for good spending. GM bail out. Do it again Please?

If I need say more, the U S population is not very intelligent.

Regards
DL

OK....if spending is good, course it isnt and in the above case it was evil.

1) logicrules you need to elaborate on why it was "evil" you cant just say its evil and not elaborate it makes you look rather uninformed
2) What do you (greatestiam) mean by "do it again"???

On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

At 3/10/2012 12:26:18 PM, imabench wrote:
1) logicrules you need to elaborate on why it was "evil" you cant just say its evil and not elaborate it makes you look rather uninformed
2) What do you (greatestiam) mean by "do it again"???

naw, it is the opposite of good, and in he all or nothing world of those who use such terms is apt.

Spending = moving economy = more spending = good

Spending = eventual leaving of money to another country = less money in the economy = bad

Spending = giving money to others = they have more spending power = good

Spending = ...

"spending" has pluses and minuses.

At 3/10/2012 2:30:07 PM, Contra wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

1. It's from "My Democrats. Org"

2. http://www.debate.org...

Also,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

At 3/10/2012 2:17:56 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Spending = moving economy = more spending = good

Spending = eventual leaving of money to another country = less money in the economy = bad

Spending = giving money to others = they have more spending power = good

Spending = ...

"spending" has pluses and minuses.

Spending money you do not have....STUPID

At 3/10/2012 12:26:18 PM, imabench wrote:
1) logicrules you need to elaborate on why it was "evil" you cant just say its evil and not elaborate it makes you look rather uninformed
2) What do you (greatestiam) mean by "do it again"???

That bail out has shown itself to be quite profitable for G M.
It is now # 1 in sales worldwide.
That bail out paid off more than expected and there is no reason why the same process could not be used to give a leg up to other companies.

It works. Obama should do it again and again.

Regards
DL

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

*Facepalm*

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

Obama could have turned this whole mess around. Need I remind you that Obama is just as Pro-War as Bush? Obama has put much more debt in one term to the US as all the Presidents before him combined.

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

A.) Deficits aren't inheritable, debts are.
B.) The deficit of 2008 was $458,553, and the debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49 (a $4,350,546,687,025.54 increase from 2000)
The current debt is $15,517,794,642,311.25 (a $5,493,069,745,398.80 increase from 2008)
Obama increased the debt more than Bush in half the time. Real winner.

At 3/11/2012 1:43:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

Obama could have turned this whole mess around. Need I remind you that Obama is just as Pro-War as Bush? Obama has put much more debt in one term to the US as all the Presidents before him combined.

Gotta love how Obama groupies claim that any war related spending is an inherited expense from Bush, yet Obama has kept Bush's War policy (something they also refer to, when someone says Obama is worse than Bush).

Quick question, why is a Canadian so fond of Obama, let alone US politics?

At 3/11/2012 1:59:27 PM, DanT wrote:
Quick question, why is a Canadian so fond of Obama, let alone US politics?

because the U.S is a dominant presence in the West, and its leader positively or negatively affects this hemisphere, principally Canada, depending on his competency. Obama is a master of foreign politics in so many, and any Republican that challenges him on it will likely get his butt kicked on the matter.

A.) Deficits aren't inheritable, debts are.
B.) The deficit of 2008 was $458,553, and the debt was $10,024,724,896,912.49 (a $4,350,546,687,025.54 increase from 2000)
The current debt is $15,517,794,642,311.25 (a $5,493,069,745,398.80 increase from 2008)
Obama increased the debt more than Bush in half the time. Real winner.:

Pretty much this.

The deluded resolve of the Obama groupies is impressive, even in spite of most DNC proponents disavowing him. Willful ignorance, pandering, and politicking.

That bail out has shown itself to be quite profitable for G M.

Well DUHHHHHHHHHH.
That doesn't make it a good idea, since it's unprofitable for EVERY TAXPAYER and those taxpayers, unlike GM, were competent.

Here's what I love.

Government comes in, bails out GM, forces workers to take paycuts, and Obama is a saint.

If Romney/Bain Capital takes over a failing company and negotiates pay cuts with the workers, they are 'slashing pay, benefits, and jobs' through their evil vulture capitalism...

Have you seen how much GM paid in taxes this year?

-76 million. Yes, they got 76 million back in US taxes this year.

Their effective tax rate?
-0.05%

http://investing.businessweek.com...

page 172

At 3/11/2012 1:40:38 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

*Facepalm*

Back at you.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Regards
DL

At 3/11/2012 1:43:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

At 3/11/2012 1:27:02 PM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/10/2012 12:46:19 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
On the way to a six trillion deficit in four years, the highest of any President in history. Stellar spending record.

Yep. Mostly inherited from the Bush years and wars.

Regards
DL

Obama could have turned this whole mess around. Need I remind you that Obama is just as Pro-War as Bush? Obama has put much more debt in one term to the US as all the Presidents before him combined.

He pulled your nuts out of the fire.
Least you could do is thank him.

http://www.theatlantic.com...

Regards
DL

At 3/11/2012 1:59:27 PM, DanT wrote:
Quick question, why is a Canadian so fond of Obama, let alone US politics?

We recognize quality where Americans do not.

As to being fond of your political system, think again. Evenmany Americans do not know how it works.

Regards
DL

I can post sources too.

http://www.google.com...

Funny thing that. Spending went up when the dems took over congress.

At 3/11/2012 5:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I can post sources too.

http://www.google.com...

Funny thing that. Spending went up when the dems took over congress.

Yes. Thank God for that.

In a socio economic demographic pyramid, what the economy thrives on is spending and investment.

What Obama did was invest the taxpayer's money. The economy did what it was supposed to do and returned profit on investment.

Obama just used the system to do what it was designed to do and here you are complaining about it doing just that.

Likely just because he is not your color. Pathetic.

Regards
DL

At 3/11/2012 5:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I can post sources too.

http://www.google.com...

Funny thing that. Spending went up when the dems took over congress.

That graph shows the cumulative deficits (they call it "debt") not spending. Here is spending:
http://research.stlouisfed.org...

Look at that huge increase after Obama took office, or not.

At 3/12/2012 11:30:42 AM, GreatestIam wrote:

At 3/11/2012 5:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I can post sources too.

http://www.google.com...

Funny thing that. Spending went up when the dems took over congress.

Yes. Thank God for that.

In a socio economic demographic pyramid, what the economy thrives on is spending and investment.

What Obama did was invest the taxpayer's money. The economy did what it was supposed to do and returned profit on investment.

Obama just used the system to do what it was designed to do and here you are complaining about it doing just that.

Likely just because he is not your color. Pathetic.

That is a horrible frame of mind to live in... anyone who doesn't agree with you about Obama is a racist?

No, I don't appreciate reckless spending. Our government has to pay interest, and interest rates will eventually go back up. When they do, we could be sending over 20% of our tax receipts to interest payments within 10-15 years. I don't know how much you understand about budgeting, but when you start spending that much on interest, you're in a lot of trouble. I don't want to see the USD default.

At 3/12/2012 12:55:03 PM, Mimshot wrote:

At 3/11/2012 5:16:57 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
I can post sources too.

http://www.google.com...

Funny thing that. Spending went up when the dems took over congress.

That graph shows the cumulative deficits (they call it "debt") not spending. Here is spending:
http://research.stlouisfed.org...

Look at that huge increase after Obama took office, or not.

Ok, do you know what you're looking at?

13% more than the previous year, and if Obama only spends 13% more than THAT the next year, the graph levels off. That's a stupid way to look at it.

Do you think Obama should be praised for ONLY spending 5% more than 13% more than 5% more than Bush?

How about you look at it realistically?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...