Fascinating Poll: Likely Voters Don't Know Squat
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're right, it is speculation as we put in place tarp and the stimulus...you asked for alternatives and i gave you what i believe is a valid alternative
the bubbles created wealth that wasn't sustainable, that wealth also created jobs that wasn't sustainable....imo....much better to have a painful affect quickly, instead of prolonging it with the stimulus....history is replete with companies spending too much, growing too fast, only to cut sharply back and survive...those that continue spending and growing too fast almost always die out
i don't know about specific government examples, but i remember something about the japanese in the 90's....didn't the government continue to prop up an unstainable growth?
Conflating bailouts and stimulus measure is stupid.
I'm not going to bother arguing the rest of that jackassery with you.
It isn't the government fault the economy is not growing, it is the banks, they won't let loose of the money that we gave them! Isn't it ironic!
The economy is growing, just really slowly; and I disagree that the banks are responsible for how slow it is.
If people really step back & take a broad view, it's confidence that is holding everything back right now. I think people might have underestimated the effect the crash had on our collective psyche; people are still reluctant to spend beyond essentials, and businesses are still reluctant to hire, even though their bottom line would encourage them to in "good" years.
It's really a baby steps process to get that confidence back as a nation....
And electing the the most stupid bunch of candidates that have ever come down the pike!
I watch in horror!
When asked which program they will get rid of when elected, well, it is just a laugh! They have all these big plans and then reality sets in and they find they are just like all the rest of the politicians elected before them! It is a joke and we are the butt of it!
Too bad for us
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
They have more money to spend. The tax cuts were applied to the withholding, so they get a little more in each paycheck. The reason the Obama administration did it thsi way, instead of a large check like Bush did (and then took back at tax time), is that large checks tend to be deposited into savings accounts, and therefore have little or no stimulative effect. A few extra bucks in each paycheck get spent immediately, and that's what the economy needs to stimulate it. If you were better informed...well, that isn't ever going to happen, is it? If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass every time he jumps, and we have a better chance of seeing a winged frog than a well-informed right-winger.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
BTW, in re: Bravo's comment that "it would be better if people had jobs and the economy shrunk." You all do realize that's not possible, don't you?
He said that back in the day, before he was noticeably behind in the polls... methinks you are desperate to forgive a D caught in a moment of truth.
(BTW - He said this back in August, just after the Primaries.)
If I'm not mistaken, he also said he thought it prevented a Depression; but it doesn't really matter. Any way you slice it, he's one guy.
You pay much more attention to the "D" and "R" stuff than I do. I disagree with him; I think that saying everything outside of the tax breaks from the stimulus was wasted is an instant credibility nosedive. There are projects and jobs in my area that benefitted, and plenty of other areas, and these are documented.
Do you want to argue that it didn't fulfill it's promise on jobs? Cool - no argument here. The problem with detractors is that they often go instantly for wild hyperbole that has little to do with reality, and so undermine whatever point they're trying to make.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
of course its possible. Don't make me explain it.
It's the opposite of a jobless recovery.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
They don't SEE shit. They only THINK they see, if the word "think" can even be applied here, because the people who believe all the dumb-shit stuff you wrote aren't thinking at all. They're just swallowing all the GOP hogwash, with out thinking how fucking little sense it all makes. Why would our health care costs go up? We already have the most expensive health care system in the fucking world. The countries with universal health care are paying between a quarter and a half of what we are paying. Yeah, their taxes may be a grand per year higher than ours, but that $2.000 in insurance premiums we pay? They don't pay any premiums. So let's put on our thinking caps boys and girls...too bad all of yours have points on them...an increase of $1,000 in taxes coupled with a $2,000 decrease in insurance premiums, results in a savings of $1,000 dollars. And that's what we would have right now, if you dipshits hadn't listened to the lies those GOP pricks were spreading about universal heath care, which is exactly what those lying motherfuckers have as members if congress...free single-payer health care. AND NOT ONE OF THEM DOESN'T WANT IT. Why is it fine for them, but not for us? Every country that has universal health care pays less than we do, and not one country that has tried it has gone back to medicine for profit. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING ONE. So why don't you all put your pointed hats back on and tell the rest of us why that is.
If brains were dynamite...
Thanks.
So your position is that Bennett thinks the $787 billion stimulus bill came at a cost of $13 trillion and that he was not noticeably behind in the polls on August 21, 2010, ten days after Rasmussen showed him trailing by 5 points?
OK.
I see you took it out of context because you want to continue to apologize for a D caught in a moment of truth. He was answering the question based on the spending in his term.
I think Bennet believes that the $3 Trillion in spending that was added during his term is part of the $13 Trillion that has "nothing to show for it." Mostly because I take him at his word and within context. I also note that you said he said it now, during desperation time.
I agree he is desperate now, but I disagree that he wasn't telling the truth back then. Nowadays he desperately tries to crawfish out of the truth into ridiculous spin, during the desperation hour you try to back away from things like that especially when you first said you didn't support it yet continued to vote for every one of them.
I also think that you want to continue to support whatever comes so long as it comes from a D. More stimulus? If a D says so, you'll support it and say it saved us. More wireless wiretapping? It's all good, because it is a D in that office now.
I spoke against it back when the R was in the office, I spoke against it when the D was in office. I've been consistent in my position.
I go to Bloomberg! It is one of my news sources! i would say they listen to cnbc, then tune to Fox and loose their minds!
As if. I've spent the last decade we have known each other speaking against both R and D spending. Spending drives taxation, there is no getting around that. You can try to push it off to the future by using debt, but the reality of it is this election is about the spending.
Where's the question? I just saw his answer that clearly isn't restricted to spending during his term and clearly is not simply in reference to the stimulus. I take him at his clear meaning.
I'm not arguing this nonsense with you.