Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

GOP Has Zero Economic Credibility With Me


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

So I watched parts of the debate tonight, but had to turn it off in disgust. Sure, I know that ideas like "let's flatten the tax rate" and "we need to repatriate $1.4T in overseas money" and "there's $1.8T wasted on regulatory compliance" are all great things to say at a debate and make you sound good.

But I don't buy any of it. If any of this was true, why didn't George Bush implement it from 2007 to 2008? Why didn't the GOP push for all these great and wonderful ideas, which I'll simply call "the underpants gnomes" instead of working to bail out AIG, and all the other banks when this whole financial crisis started?

The most hypocritical in my mind is Michelle B. Her spiel on how mom's facing foreclosures need to hang on, because the GOP is somehow going to help is pure insanity and lies. The GOP was working to kill the only Federal program around for foreclosure relief when they were attempting to kill the TARP (I think they ended up compromising by shutting down any new programs, but Obama/Democrats had already gotten $50B earmarked for foreclosure relief).

Just say, "We're sorry, our economic policies of the past 30 years have led us to this point; and the only options that will fix it will inflict major pain on many people". I see two solutions: 1) Inflation that devalues debt and helps out with that problem, but it screws anyone on a fixed income (ie. those on social security). 2) Massive Federal spending cuts that cause major deflation and will be a direct cause of another depression.

Also, it would've been nice if they admitted that housing was in a bubble, and forget policies which just work to reinflate the housing bubble. Just say "a whole lot of you are going to be underwater, please don't walk away from your home because it will kill the banks."

Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't. Bush and the Republicans got pretty much everything they wanted between 2000 and 2006. Did they try to attack abortion? Did they try to get rid of the Dept of Education or the National Endowment for the Arts? Did they address the housing and banking laws (or lack of regulation/enforcement)? Did they try to flatten the tax code? Did they say debt doesn't matter?

They're not solely to blame, but they had a large hand in creating this mess. Obama and his crew now also have very dirty hands. They really blew the opportunity to make meaningful change when they had their supermajority. They really should have done better. What they tried hasn't been effective enough or hasn't been effective. And they too, haven't challanged the status quo in any significant way... except in going after health care, and even that was too timid. It should have been a nationalized, socialist policy if they wanted universal care. To try to create universal care using the existing insurance/capitalist infrastructure is dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a huge turnaround in the last few elections. The normal waiting their turn to get back in has been erroding over the last 15 years.

New faces should make you a 'bit' happier. Fixing the third party rigged elections should be up there if you want 'change' though.

i will never get my head around this: (It should have been a nationalized, socialist policy if they wanted universal care)

Socialism is never the answer. Starting at the community and working out from there is always the answer, we just stopped doing it for all the bennies we get from the fed. Churches are now just places not to eat at anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a huge turnaround in the last few elections. The normal waiting their turn to get back in has been erroding over the last 15 years.

New faces should make you a 'bit' happier. Fixing the third party rigged elections should be up there if you want 'change' though.

i will never get my head around this: (It should have been a nationalized, socialist policy if they wanted universal care)

Socialism is never the answer. Starting at the community and working out from there is always the answer, we just stopped doing it for all the bennies we get from the fed. Churches are now just places not to eat at anymore.

We have a number of "socialist" programs that have been operating in the U.S. for generations. Public education being the biggest. I know we complain (and often with cause) about our school systems, but can you imagine if there was never "free" education? So, many advances would have failed to have happened. So, many people would have failed to reach their potential. America would have never risen to a world power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really riding the party pony got us where we are.

Ferguson, wake up. Both parties suck. Work for some REAL change.

I think people have amesia with the posting histor of people on this board

For years Ferg has been a fairly partisan Republican. He agrees that both parties suck, but the Rs REALLY suck right now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In hindsight Ross Perot would have never let us get in this position.

The Gov't is not above the people. They work for the people. The sooner they start to appreciate and realize that, the sooner we can fix this mess we are in.

The Gov't spends way too much money on things that most folks would spend a fraction on.

Problem is that the only way to get rid of them immediately is for them to do something criminal without a doubt. Ugh.

Stealing from us daily is criminal enough for me.

I want to vote for the guy/gal that will be willing to take the heat and stand by his/her words to try to fix it.

The money we have wasted on wars over recent years is pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WE desperately need a Ross Perot for 2012. Maybe the 2012 Perot could win or at least have such an impact; he helps dictate the course of action after the election. Clinton would never have thought about making reducing the deficit a priority if Ross didn't pound it for the 1992 elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one candidate on stage who embodied most of the things you talked about in the OP -

- was outspoken against the bailouts

- predicted the housing bubble and knew the exact causes years in advance (2001)

- repeatedly calls out his colleagues for blindly towing the GOP line

...but you're not allowed to mention his name because only Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain (all of whom supported the bailouts) are allowed to be taken seriously as candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that I agree with Fergs GOP assessment as a whole, though of course, Id throw in one exception.

---------- Post added October-19th-2011 at 10:05 AM ----------

There was one candidate on stage who embodied most of the things you talked about in the OP -

- was outspoken against the bailouts

- predicted the housing bubble and knew the exact causes years in advance (2001)

- repeatedly calls out his colleagues for blindly towing the GOP line

...but you're not allowed to mention his name because only Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain (all of whom supported the bailouts) are allowed to be taken seriously as candidates.

Ferg actually used to be a vocal fan, but has gone a different direction in recent months. I am disappointed, but definitely understand the perspective

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't buy any of it. If any of this was true, why didn't George Bush implement it from 2007 to 2008? Why didn't the GOP push for all these great and wonderful ideas, which I'll simply call "the underpants gnomes" instead of working to bail out AIG, and all the other banks when this whole financial crisis started?

There's a plan, just wait until they get to Phase 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one candidate on stage who embodied most of the things you talked about in the OP -

- was outspoken against the bailouts

- predicted the housing bubble and knew the exact causes years in advance (2001)

- repeatedly calls out his colleagues for blindly towing the GOP line

...but you're not allowed to mention his name because only Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain (all of whom supported the bailouts) are allowed to be taken seriously as candidates.

Add in he actually balanced a Federal Budget and hasnt been involved in Govt over the last 15 years.

You were talking about Newt right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Add in he actually balanced a Federal Budget and hasnt been involved in Govt over the last 15 years.

You were talking about Newt right?

ahhh, NO.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/09/gingrich-now-ba/

ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reversed course on Monday, issuing a statement saying that if he were still in office he would "reluctantly and sadly" support the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure "he who must not be named" got himself dis-invited from future GOP debates. I didn't even watch the whole debate, but here were my highlights:

1) HWMNBN destroying everyone else on the stage when it came to foreign aid.

2) HWMNBN destroying everyone else on the stage when they tried to destroy Cain over the "we will not negotiate with terrorists"

3) HWMNBN destroying Cain over his comments on Occupy Wall St.

I don't see why the one candidate who actually says he's going to do something about big government is doing so poorly with the GOP; I guess its because the GOP voters don't really believe in his small government vision.

Fast forward a year and I can see Obama beating whichever one of these fools comes up for election, which is why I'm saving Bachman's: "The cake has been baked already!" comment. I remember in 2004, 2006, and 2008 when the GOP complained that the Democrat's lacked substance and all they were doing was running on the "I'm not George W Bush" platform. It didn't even take 2 years of his Presidency and the GOP's strategy has been "blame Obama". Really?! I'm supposed to believe there's a shred of honesty in that? It's going to make Obama talking about how the GOP crashed the car, he's trying to fix it, and they aren't giving him a chance actually look like a decent point.

... and all of them going after Cain over 9-9-9? 9-9-9- sounds like an awesome idea... I'd love to abolish payroll taxes for a simple 9% income tax + 9% sales tax at the Federal level. And if you want to complain about how it's "raising taxes" on states that don't have a sales tax; why doesn't someone campaign for Federal pre-emption of state sales taxes (that would be an epic fight), ie Congress makes it illegal for states to impose their own sales taxes. I make this statement that the hang-wringing attacks on 9-9-9 aren't persuading me against it. 9-9-9 has no chance however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see two solutions: 1) Inflation that devalues debt and helps out with that problem, but it screws anyone on a fixed income (ie. those on social security). 2) Massive Federal spending cuts that cause major deflation and will be a direct cause of another depression.

You forgot no. 3-- get yourself a good piece of land, grow some food, and ride it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this guy have any economic credibility with you?

Maybe his economic adviser Peter Schiff has some credibility?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

Is he so "crazy" that when he's right he still has to be ignored?

Devastating. The Austrians are clearly right in this regard. I think the problems with Paul are, #1...his national defense strategy is too radical, rather than presenting a path from A to B, he just goes straight to B, and 2) the idea of a gold standard is foreign to many and simply seems loony. Couple both with the fact that he looks and sounds loony, and a lot of his wonderful message is lost on most people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devastating. The Austrians are clearly right in this regard. I think the problems with Paul are, #1...his national defense strategy is too radical, rather than presenting a path from A to B, he just goes straight to B, and 2) the idea of a gold standard is foreign to many and simply seems loony. Couple both with the fact that he looks and sounds loony, and a lot of his wonderful message is lost on most people.

I'd point out that NOT just the Austrians predicted the collapse of the housing market.

Others went even further than talking about the things like Fannie and Freddie to talking about things like mortgage back securities and the related issues, which are what REALLY caused the damage and caused companies that aren't directly related to mortgages (e.g. AIG) to go have financial issues.

These people are generally democrats and favored/favor MORE regulation. Just as example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Baker

The people that seems like they really should have lost were the Chicago school of economics, which were almost universally Republicans and what most Republican elected officials have run back to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people that seems like they really should have lost were the Chicago school of economics, which were almost universally Republicans and what most Republican elected officials have run back to.

Recall reading some wit, commenting on the difference between Economics and Science.

He claimed that when a scientist comes up with a theory, he uses that theory to make a prediction. And, if the prediction doesn't come true, then he concludes that his theory is wrong, and he tries to find out what's wrong with his theory.

But that, when an economist's prediction doesn't come true, he begins studying reality, to try to figure out why it doesn't behave like his theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a number of "socialist" programs that have been operating in the U.S. for generations. Public education being the biggest. I know we complain (and often with cause) about our school systems, but can you imagine if there was never "free" education? So, many advances would have failed to have happened. So, many people would have failed to reach their potential. America would have never risen to a world power.

The current system doesn't work for all. Acheiveable Dream from Newport Va would be better for inner city and rural areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fergasun, I watched the whole debate and post commentary, and I agree with a lot of what you say here. I really hoped for a good, modern republican candidate that could fix this economy, but i'm just not seeing that candidate at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...