JerrySeinfeld

That's exactly what Paul Ryan proposes, Kimmy:

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! Move the goalposts? So now in Waldoland, employee costs don't include pension liabilities and health care costs for union members and retirees? Where'd you go to business school, Harvard? LOL!!!

DO you understand the difference between TARP and stimulus? TARP purchased troubled assets so banks - and the global financial system - would not collapse that monday morning. The other 800 billion was released by GW Bush at the request of President Elect Obama. SO there is some disagreement as to who to credit for that "spending". I would never argue GW Bush was a fiscal domestic conservative. Did I argue that? No - that's you putting words in my mouth. For the record, TARP was absolutely necessary, while the $800 "stimulus" (read: Democrat filled pork bill) was absolutely not. For those of us who actually understand the anatomy of what happen in that period, this is not a difficult distinction. I am sorry if it is difficult for you, however. So the 1.6 trillion was about half TARP and half Obama requested stimulus which the President can conveniently claim was issued "before I took office". So he can mislead the public by saying "spending hasn't rises very fast since I took office". But look at the facts, whether or not you disagree with either TARP or Stimulus, one cannot argue against the objective fact that in the absence of these two emergency measures, Obama has massively increased spending and the debt. As for GW Bush's popularity, it's too bad that he gets such a bad rap from people like you who are too ignorant to understand what actually happened in those harrowing few months, because as I have proven to you, his actions saved the financial world from collapse. But the fact is, millions of people also went to see "Waterworld" with Kevin Costner; people are dumb, and, like you, will buy the simpleton's narrative. As a consequence, it's politically prudent not to associate with a guy everyone hates. Makes perfect sense to me :-)

If you disagree with the assertion that the $787 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which Bush used to purchase toxic debt from failing banks, saved the global financial system from collapse, then great, I'd be interested to hear you make the case. I'm waiting...

Got the million pensioners and commensurate health benefits attached to this? How about pension contributions for future retirees? Didn't think so.

Everybody on the planet knows this fudged number is because 1.6 trillion dollars was spent by Bush three months before Obama took office to save the global economy from collapse. You are either financially illiterate or a liar, you decide.

Hey bub it's your guy who fought for the bank to give loans to bad risks. Don't blame the white man for everything.

Teachers need to get with reality. Just because you're in a union doesn't mean you get to live in an alternate reality where global economics doesn't affect you. And stop using the word "deserve". It makes you sound like spoiled chideren. You don't "deserve" anything. Grown adults earn, they don't "deserve". You guys get full pensions and annual wage increases. That's way more than most anyone else gets in the world, so count yourself as lucky.

Exactly how did Bush policy hurt the Auto industry? The auto industry has been years suffering because unions force them to pay $100k a year to some high school dropout just to snap a bumper into place when someone in China will do it for $7k.

But 60% increase in three years? No President has presided over such irresponsibility in the history of the country.

Ya. good job, courts. Forcing banks to lend to people who obviously couldn't afford it. Which is why such a huge chunk defaulted and went into foreclosure.

This is a baldfaced lie. TARP stopped the fall off the cliff, and TARP was a GW Bush policy. Now, please advise us all how enhanced interrogation did not lead to the killing of Bin Laden. Enhanced interrogation led to the courier. The courier led to Bin Laden. Gauntanamo bay, interrogation at the facility, killed Bin Laden. Barack Hussein Obama campaigned against enhanced interrogation and against Guantanamo, the very facility that led to Bin Laden.

So what the huge amount of toxic debt was simply transferred from the private sector to government. So instead of a private sector credit crisis, we have a sovereign debt problem, soon to be crisis. Yay! All Obama has done is kick the can down the road, inflate debt by 60% in three short years, increase dependency on a debt laden teetering government, and keep his own job. He hasn't solved any of these problems. Bin Laden was found because of enhanced interrogation techniques which Obama campaigned against. Then he spiked the ball and took all the credit.

Justice is $58 billion. Education is $106 billion. Get your facts straight, Einstein. And of course they make no sense to you. Why would spending less than what you take in make any sense to a socialist?

Yes. $5 trillion dollars in new debt 3 years. What a spendthrift. US government took 70 years to accumulate $10 trillion in debt. It took Obama just 3 years to add 50% to that number. Way to echo those Dem talking points, though ;-)

Cut: $200 billion from defence $20 billion from transportation $10 billion from energy $20 billion from Environment $30 billion from education $100 billion from health $100 billion from medicare $300 billion from social security $20 billion from justice Thats 800 billion.

Cut the spending Obama has increased over the past four years and you're 2/3 of the way there, buddy.

Mortgages are profitable for banks, which is why they give them. Why would any businessperson (banker) in his right mind refuse profit, just because of someone's skin colour? Bankers are money grubbing robber barons who only care about money, right? But then they refuse to create mortgages that make money? Which is it, big guy?

Democrats are the only ones concerned with skin colour. The reason Obama pushed for risky lending in the first place was racial. Race race race race race. He sees everything through this lens.

That's a typical brainwashed liberal response: when confronted with the truth, ignore.

What are you talking about? Are you putting social security into some kind of non-reality bubble? If you're raising taxes to pay for social security, what is going to pay for the 1.6 trillion dollar deficit? Mre taxes? Is it ever enough for you commies?

I have talked about this before, but it's a difficult subject to breach because it's racial. It's absolutely true, though. Democrats see everything through the prism of race. The hidden secret of subprime is that a huge chunk of the subprime was black. Banks forced through legislation to give risky mortgages to non-crediworthy people on the basis of race.

The non partisan CBO warns that raising taxes in the delicate recovery is likely to drive the US economy back into a recession. The single worst thing a government can do during an economic recovery is raise taxes.

The United states has higher corporate taxes than Canada, by far. Their corporate taxes are uncompetitive with the rest of the world, which makes the US a relatively unattractive place to do business - ie. Create jobs. Cutting corporate taxes simply puts the US in line with other countries on corporate taxes. A smart thing to do. Reducing capital gains tax is also a good thing. It encourages investment in business, which, again, creates jobs. I think Kimmy is right that the GOP wants to maintain a strong defence while the Dems want to cut it. So what? The first job of any real nation is to have a strong military. As for "gutting programs that help regular Americans", well this is just simply political boilerplate. Look at the growth of entitlement spending in the united states. It has grown 757%, adjusted for inflation, since 1962. I would hardly say the US government is want for enough "programs" "helping" "regular" people. The problem most Democrats have is that they don't know the meaning of the word "no", or "off". The only responsible direction of any government spending on "programs" is "up". Reverse this trend even a small amount and you are being "unjust".

August I agree with you Obama is the favourite. But polling is very close. The single biggest determinant of victory could end up being voter turnout. If the Democrats are too confident in victory, it could end up being their downfall if they don't show up at the polls because they think they "have it in the bag". In 2010, the Republicans, to quote Obama, "shellacked" the Democrats because the conservative base was fired up. If we see a repeat of that, Romney could quite easily win. A lot of "ifs", but this is a bad economy for a sitting President. If you are some poor black guy in urban Detroit, are you as motivated to go out and vote as you were in 2008? The answer is no.