"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hct88c$mg9$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.
BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to
get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or
are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10
months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.


Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St,
overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to spend
money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were you
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?

Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather
than taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
government never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush
got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury
when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not
have to try to get the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE
Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

"John Galt" <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1.97376 at (no spam) en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
alt.politics.bush wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200...

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?
Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG

"Roy Blankenship" <pointblaank at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:itKdnUUag-OKt2_XnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hct88c$mg9$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.
BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to
get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or
are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt
in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10
months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is
spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.


Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St,
overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to spend
money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were
you
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?



Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the
banks
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions
in
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff
we
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.

Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking
system.

Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That
can
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is going
down.

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hctabn$53v$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

"Roy Blankenship" <pointblaank at (no spam) earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:itKdnUUag-OKt2_XnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hct88c$mg9$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had
lowered
tax
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
government
never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP.
BO
and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to
get
the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101,
or
are
they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt
in
history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10
months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration.
And
Obama is still going.

PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is
spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.


Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St,
overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to
spend
money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were
you
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?



Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the
banks
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions
in
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff
we
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.

Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on
the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking
system.

Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That
can
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is
going
down.

You are projecting a lot of what happened in the Bush era to Obama.
Weren't
oil prices AND gas prices through the roof during the Bush reign?

And, actually, it got people started on a good path, conserving and
looking
at alternative fuels and transportation.

I think there is something happening bigger than the people we see running
the country. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, why? The money going to
Iraq could resolve health-care by itself, $12,000,000,000 a month? Why is
there no outcry about this? There is something happening that the American
people are not being told. We are there to benefit some bigger picture and
regardless of who seems to be running the store, the will of the American
people is not being assuaged. No, everyone is worried about people they
will
never meet getting married, as if their relationship affects them. Geez...

Food stamps are the most effective way.
There is another.

That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.

"dr_jeff" <utz at (no spam) msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com...
Mike Hunter wrote:
Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
had
lowered tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow
the economy,
rather than taking money from us to give it too others.
Why does
the government never learn from history? When Kennedy,
Reagan and
Bush got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to
the US
Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to
spend money
we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did
they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?

Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and
national debt
in history.

The big difference is that Bush was not spending the
money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.

Jeff


Obama has grown the deficit by four times.

alt.politics.bush wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Digest

The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009

AUTOMOTIVE

"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"

TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.

The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.

The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.

To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.

-- Associated Press

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200....

What value do you put on keeping the economy running?

Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?

JG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -