JerrySeinfeld

There is freedom, and then there is good taste.

Ann Romney knocked it out of the park. Way better. I liked how MO copied much of the sentiment. Imitation is the highest form of flattery.

I think you're misinterpreting my praise for one policy decision - TARP - with "defending" Bush. TARP was essential. Anyone who knows anything about what happened that day knows this. If you have any questions, watch the PBS documentary "inside the meltdown", a pretty good account of what went down in those few days. Additionaly, anyone who actually followed George W Bush's domestic policy knows it wasn't exactly conservative. National Prescription Drug program was a hugely expensive social program and something you would be more likely to find in a Democrat playbook as "how to buy votes" in most decades. Bush wasn't a fiscal hawk and I would never claim him to be one. But that doesn't excuse what's going on now...you know, in the present tense, where we all live...today? Let's exclude 2008 and 2009 altogether, since there is some debate as to how to assign that huge cash injection during a huge crisis. Bush's 2007 Budget spent 2.7 trillion dollars. Obama's 2010 budget spent 3.55 trillion. That's a 25% increase in the size of government. And if you don't believe me, then just look at this chart: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/outlays-GDP.png The last time we had a government this big was under - you guessed it - CARTER. And we all know how well THAT went. Let me retort by saying, I think Obama's robots would have a little more credibility if they didn''t cry "Bush did it" everytime someone says something negative about their guy.

A little thin skinned there on the whole Barack Hussein/Barry thing aren't we? Never ceases to amaze how utterly oversensitive Dems can be. Sorry did I just bring up skin? Must be a racist Thought you were gonna whip up an ol' trendline for me? Well get like a busy little beaver and whip it up, and then we can talk. That's a nice little sleight of hand: "the TARP and Stimulus were one offs, but we kept spending at that same (spiked) level every year since, so we took the spiked spending, kept that as our new baseline and TADA! we're fiscal hawks" You're still evading the simple, basic questions. Really is it that difficult for you to answer a simple question? 1. How long did it take George Walker Bush to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt? 2. How long did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion dollars to the national debt? Simple, easy questions. Here's a hint, try google first.

Ah yes, the familiar "cuts in services" threats we always hear leftists warning us all about. Why don't you do your homework before you start typing, my friend. Government spending has risen continuously AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. Sheesh. It's like herding cats, you two, Punked and Waldo. http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/4e1c5ade4bd7c86b22030000-590/and-heres-another-look-at-federal-spending-as-a-percent-of-gdp-for-the-past-century-its-not-way-out-of-whack-these-days-at-least-relative-to-the-last-60-years-but-thanks-to-the-stimulus-its-higher-than-it-has-been-since-world-war-2-and-the-republicans-are-probably-right-its-too-high.jpg

Ahh yes. The familiar "it's Bush's fault" refrain. First Prez in history who doesn't take any resposibility. Got any new material, or will we be hearing more regurgitation of Democrat talking points? But yes, should be a nice break to see Bill Clinton talk tonight, leading up to finger-pointer in chief on Thursday. It's actually pretty smart to run on Clinton's economy - after all, Barack Hussein Obama can't run on the economy, you know, he actually presides over, right? Or should we call him Barry, which he called himself up until he finished Law School then mysteriously changed his name to one he chose from a book which would sonud more authentic - Barack? Was that around the time he started attending a racist church for TWENTY YEARS? Not sure on that one. I should remind you that Bill Clinton's most famous line was "the era of big government is over". I like Ari Fleischer's comment last night: Obama's line is more like "the era of big government being over, is over". Classic. I guess, what can we really expect from a guy like Barry who, you know with no real resume to speak of, his first real job was, you know, being President of the United States. Here's a homework project for you: look at this chart... http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg And since you're so intent on attributing Obama's spending to Bush, then why is spending still at $3.5 billion annually? Shouldn't it be at $2.7 billion, the number we were all at before TARP and stimulus?

Yea. Look at this chart. As you can see, the problem is clearly tax cutting, not growth in spending: http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg

I'll repeat it again. I don't think Bush was a fiscal hawk. Never did. That said, TARP saved the world from global financial collapse. This is a fact. TARP also heightened the baseline making Obama's spending rate increase look comparatively smaller. This is also a fact. You still haven't answered my 2 very basic questions. That's a lot of words. Isn't that what you guys are best at? Racking up debt and then spinning it? Usually when someone can't answer two basic questionsm, and instead goes on a wild ramble defending their "guy" instead of dealing with, you know, facts, it's telling. If it makes you feel better, go ahead and whip up that trendline. Meantime, answer the two questions: 1. How many years did it take GW Bush to add $5 trillion to the US national debt? 2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to add $5 Trillion to the national debt? Answer the questions.

I'm not a partisan on this particular issue, and have never claimed GW Bush to be a fiscal conservative, so to use your vernacular - why be putting' words in my mouth? I don't have time to dissect your gibberish right now, but meantime you can answer me two questions: 1. How many years did it take GW Bush to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt? 2. How many years did it take Barack Hussein Obama to accumulate $5 Trillion dollars in debt? Oh wait - maybe he can add another $5 Trillion in his next term! $5 Trillion on top of the existing $15 Trillion is only a 33% growth in the debt! What an "improvement" from the 50% growth rate in his first term!! But why stop there? Let's elect Joe Biden in 2016, he can add $5 Trillion more in debt. Hey the national debt will be 200% of the US economy, but spending growth will only be 25% over the term! Success!! If we could only get the national debt up to $40 Trillion then add another $5 Trillion the growth rate would only be about 12.5% over the entire term of one President. Wow!

I see you're still having a bit of trouble. Even if you shift $456 billion to Obama, the baseline after TARP and the rest of stimulus is far higher than would have been in it's absence, by about $1.2 trillion dollars. I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand basic mathematics. You can twist the numbers all day long, but you cannot deny that Obama has added $5 trillion to the national debt in just 3.5 years, more than any President in history. This guy has made trillion WITH A "T" a household word, and just expects us all to act like TRILLION ISN'T THAT BIG A DEAL, BECAUSE ON A "PERCENTAGE BASIS" (debatable) HE'S ADDING LESS. Let's be frank, when you're adding $5 trillion to your national debt every 3.5 years, does the rate of growth really matter? It took 70 years for the debt to get from zero to 10 trillion. And 3.5 to get from 10 to $15 (actually 16) trillion. And his (and your) best retort is "hey at least the rate is a bit slower". That's insanity. If your mortgage is $500K and you decide to borrow another $250K, you just increased your household debt by 50%. If you can't pay the bills, does it really matter that 500 to 750 is a "slower rate" that $250 to $500K? Nope. WHen your country's debt is the same size as your entire economy, you are in the same company as Iceland (which went bankrupt), Ireland (which almost did) and Portugal (which is currently the whipping boy of the international bond markets. Dude at least be honest with yourself on this. Anyone can play with percentages and growth rates. Ask yourself this? How long did it take GW Bush to add (working from memory here) $5 trillion in debt to the government tab? His entire 8 year term. Obama added the same amount in less than 4 years. This is a fact, get your facts straight before you start bandying about with percentages. But hey, why let something like, you know, facts, get in the way of a good Democrat "hey spending is just fine" spin? For your next trick, let me guess. "Spending is just fine, in fact, we're INCREASING spending and raising taxes to pay for it". You know, because that's worked so well for the past 40 years regardless of party in power and worked even better in, you know, France, Greece, Portugal, Italy... Obama's slogan shouldn't be "FORWARD". Why not just be honest like the Europeans? how about this: "MORE" The Dems aired an ad of Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff. The GOP should counter...with a video of Obama throwing the entire country off a cliff - a fiscal cliff.

So now even talking about issues affected by race is racist? Gotcha there, Chris Matthews

Odds are Obama will win, but Romney has a much better shot than most people think.

Union workers/teachers and other of the self entitled class have a warped expectation of how much they save and deserve. I talked to a teacher who has something like $300 deducted for pension contributions per month. Over a 40 year career, that adds up to about $150,000. Then they expect to draw a pension of $50,000 per year. The math doesn't add up because interest rates have dropped and investment returns aren't even close to what they used to be - so the pension fund can't grow as quickly as it used to in the 80's. Additionally, in order to generate a lifetime income of $50K per year, you today you would need in the neighbourhood of $1.4 million saved up. That difference is called "underfunded", and it is a large problem. The union guy at GM or the teacher has no clue that the company (or taxpayer, in the case of public sector teachers) is forced to come up with the difference. What does he care? In his little bubble of a world, he has a "right" to the pension because he "paid into it", completely oblivious to the fact that his contributions add up to roughly 3 years of pension income, not the 25 he has come to expect. Times have changed. It's about time people who work in cushy union gigs realize that they are going to suffer the consequences of poor markets and economics, just like the rest of the world does. Your bubble just got burst. Problem is, these people don't want to face reality. So they are easy targets for a snake oil salesman like Obama who comes along and helps reaffirm their fantasy world by pretending (incorrectly) that everything will be OK if we just stick it to some rich guy who can afford it.

Saying Romney's plan is idiotic isn't an argument. What about it bugs you?

GM's recent quarter has net earnings of $1.8 billion on revenues of $37.6 billion, so a net margin of about 4.7%, so yes, I would say the demands by unions have a significant and meaningful impact on the fortunes of GM. But hey, don't let that stop you from regurgitating Union boss talking points

He's not a liar, he's just a talker. This is pretty funny. This time he means it?

Need to shrink the government. Greece showed us all what happens when you create a dependent society that penalizes success and rewards infantile dependency.

Romney's plan reduces taxes for everybody, not just Mitt Romney. He is giving everyone across the board a permanent 20% cut. So if you paid $35,000 in tax last year, under Romney that you will have $7,000 more in your pocket. Now what would you rather, yet another Obama stamped boring government bursary for liberal arts college, or a cool 7 GR in cash. I know my answer! Talk about direct economic stimulus! This together with his corporate tax cut is almost certain to unleash the 2 trillion dollars in corporate cash just sitting on the sidelines worrying about what kind of regulation or tax Obama is going to shove down their throat next. Can you say boom time? By contrast, Obama wants more of your money, to do what with, I guess we will have to "pass the bill to find out what's in it" to quote Nancy Pelosi. TO him, it doesn't really matter. He's been pretty clear with the electorate - surprisingly honest, in fact - about his belief that the middle class is a borg of public sector employees - teachers, police, and the like - not software salesmen or small business owners - you know, people who actually create wealth. As for so what, my only point is this: this whole fairness/envy thing is a waste of time and a cynical way to run a campaign. Should Romney pay a little more? Sure. But look at facts: the top 10% income earners already pay 70% of the tax burden. Look it up. Not enough? Not good enough? With some exceptions (the ones you always hear Obama chirping about on TV), the upper class already pay way more than their fair share. Envy is an ugly thing. Let it go. Even if you let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest Americans, studies show that only makes up about $40 billion in revenue - in other words, nothing. SO don't be fooled, Obama isn't paying for the countries lollipops on the backs of a few rich people. It's just his plan to demonize a few rich people so he can get back into the white house with no real plan at all.

Subprime was caused in part, not entirely, but in part, because left wing )Democrat) legislators pushed banks into mortgages that would help minorities purchase a home, and in many cases this meant loosening lending standards to accommodate uncreditworthy or risky borrowers. This isn't up for debate. It's a fact. There is nothing far right wing about facts. WHat's sad is that some people (you?) are so brainwashed by left wing narratives (never say anything negative about any race except white people), that they are blind even in the face of something the rest of us call reality..you know - the truth? The truth has no ideology. What has an ideology is your reaction to it. See what I'm doing is stating the truth. What your reaction does is clearly paint you into an ideological corner - that of someone who is so blinded by ideology that when their beliefs clash with the truth, they get upset and call names. Get help.

Ah so now I'm a racist eh? Classy. Actually, predictable. Lefties, all the same. When facts don't work, they play the R card. Or say something mean about you because you made some money. Envy, class, race, willful ignorance, groupthink, name calling. Familiar calling cards of the brilliant left.

:lol: Did you even read what is in your link? It clearly only assigns $140 billion out of $1.6 trillion to Obama. My point remains very clear and easy to understand: the unique events in late 2009 cause a massive one time spike in spending. Using this as a baseline for Obama's spending is misleading for two reasons. First, the baseline is unusually high due to TARP and Stimulus. A real fiscal hawk would have seen spending go down to previous levels again after such an unusually high one time event. Instead, Obamas spending continued at those levels and even continued to rise further. Think of it as a family budget: your monthly spend is $6,000. Now your BBQ catches fire and burns the back door, some siding and part of the eavestrough. Total cost to remodel? $5,000. So this month, instead of the $6,000 nut, you have an $11,000 nut. In Obama's world, you just keep on spending $11,000 every following month - that's your new baseline, but you're a fiscal hawk because you kept it at $11,000 for a few years.

Weird, you ask for evidence other than my words, so when I provide it you get sorta pissy? hmm. Yep. Show me a business that wouldn't prosper for a few years after being relinquished of it's debts and a handed a bucketload of government cash. Good old Government Motors ;-) As for their pension problem, Union contracts demand generous pension and health commitments from the company. This is a major cost drag on the company. GM, even with a good year makes around 7 billion in earnings. Their Pension is underfunded by $26 billion. Any idiot can see this is a major cost drag. Unions did take some concessions nearing GM's bankruptcy (after President Obama leaned on the bondholders, contravened insolvency law and handed the company to his union buddies, of course - Halliburton, anyone?). As a result of these concessions, the union isn't as big a drag on the company as it once was. See? Even the unions realized they were making too much - oops too general for the accountant in the room - I mean even the unions realized their wages, combined with pensions, cadillac he alt care plans and other costs associated with employing a unionized worker...were too high.

Since about 1970, there has only been one constant, regardless of political party: steady, relentless growth in taxes, regulation, and government. Bush just happened to be the sorry sap who was sitting in the oval office when it all hit the fan. The problems of debt, easy money, massive government deficits and spending, increased taxation has been slowly stewing for 40 years. So ask yourself, is the answer to these problems MORE OF THE SAME? That's what Europe just did - they're teetering on a debt cliff from 40 years of "free" pie, and they all just voted themselves more pie. That's the Obama answer to 40 years of spending, debt, and growth of taxes: MORE!

First of all, that's taken directly from an Obama campaign speech, so save the Dem talking points. Second, I'd like to see the evidence of this. Third, so what?

you didn't think so? Jer, I just referenced what you spoke to... you know - wages! Now, you've been throwing down a whole lotta Jerry through these threads - unsubstantiated Jerry opinion. I responded appropriately to your wages reference... with a cited response. Let's see you continue this discussion where you now want to also introduce workers pensions and health benefits into the mix - you know, as you move the goalposts! Let's see you actually substantiate Jerry opinion with cited detail that presumes on your stated, "auto industry suffering" principally due to workers wages... and now the worker benefits you also want to mix in. I captured that right, didn't I Jerry - you're all about the principal cause of auto industry suffering as workers wages/benefits, right?... right, Jerry? looking forward, finally, to some Jerry substantiation... what was it you said in the other thread? Oh ya... waiting! Read and learn, Einstein. http://howestreet.com/2012/08/gm-seeks-bigger-credit-line-to-shrink-pension-obligations-deja-vu-pension-woes/