Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’

martin · 06-10-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

[/b]

more lies, spending more on what? show me what he is spending more on.
Most of his deficit came from tax cuts and stimulus(infrastructure spending). I'll accept it when you prove it to me, it coming out of your mouth is useless at this point. You have more than proven that.

well i just want to be clear.

is it your contention that obama has reduced overall spending? yes or no?

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

do you agree with your article, when it says:

"Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama. "

do you think your article is lying and that obama has actually reduced spending? if so why did you post the article? according to your article, obama is keeping bush spending and adding more.

No i dont think the article is lying, but you fail realize where the reductions will come. The Bush tax cuts will expire and the war spending will be reduced. You just said that spending is fine when its on infrastructure and education, which most of the stimilus is. Or do you want to walk back that claim too?

martin · 06-10-2009, 12:50 PM

so we are clear, it is your contention that obama has reduced overall spending?

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

well i just want to be clear.

is it your contention that obama has reduced overall spending? yes or no?

Ive already answered that, read up a bit.
As I said I was rebuting your contention that Obama is worst than Bush fiscally after 135 days. I never once said he has reduced overall spending. But you just said that spending on infrastructure is good, right?

Is spending bad or good on infrastructure?

martin · 06-10-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

Ive already answered that, read up a bit.
As I said I was rebuting your contention that Obama is worst than Bush fiscally after 135 days.

yes, and i base that on big spending.

Quote:

I never once said he has reduced overall spending

correct. he has increased spending, i am glad we agree on that. now i happen to think that big spending is not necessary, and it hurts us, and the biggest spender ever is the wors president ever.

Quote:

But you just said that spending on infrastructure is good, right?

Is spending bad or good on infrastructure?

good, but we suddenly do not need to spend more than we ever have. if the obama spending was for roads and bridges and education and lamost nothing else, it would be cool, and also alot less expensive.

but the reality is that obama is throwing a trillion at "toxic assets" and billions and billions more at absurd bailouts and things that not only are not infrastructure, they directly damage our economy.

and i am aware that bush also enjoyed a nice bailout now and again, that is because bush is terrible. and obama is worse.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

yes, and i base that on big spending.

correct. he has increased spending, i am glad we agree on that. now i happen to think that big spending is not necessary, and it hurts us, and the biggest spender ever is the wors president ever.

good, but we suddenly do not need to spend more than we ever have. if the obama spending was for roads and bridges and education and lamost nothing else, it would be cool, and also alot less expensive.

but the reality is that obama is throwing a trillion at "toxic assets" and billions and billions more at absurd bailouts and things that not only are not infrastructure, they directly damage our economy.

and i am aware that bush also enjoyed a nice bailout now and again, that is because bush is terrible. and obama is worse.

He has increased spending on infrastructure, which you said was good, right?

Tell me how a bailout damages the economy?
Also, is it your contention that if AIG, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs failed, that would have been good for our economy?

martin · 06-10-2009, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

He has increased spending on infrastructure, which you said was good, right?

yes, but the amount of spending required is less than he is spending. plus i think what qualifies as "infrastructure" might differ.

Quote:

Tell me how a bailout damages the economy?
Also, is it your contention that if AIG, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs failed, that would have been good for our economy?

absolutely it would have been good for the economy. the market evolves when businesses that are run poorly are allowed to fail and be replaced by better ones. yuno, the market "evolves" because the strong survive.

if these banks are run by incompetent morons, and they cant stay afloat, so be it. dont reward incompetence with bailouts. there are other companies out there desperate to take their place, but they cannot because the government bails out failure.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

yes, but the amount of spending required is less than he is spending. plus i think what qualifies as "infrastructure" might differ.

absolutely it would have been good for the economy. the market evolves when businesses that are run poorly are allowed to fail and be replaced by better ones. yuno, the market "evolves" because the strong survive.

if these banks are run by incompetent morons, and they cant stay afloat, so be it. dont reward incompetence with bailouts. there are other companies out there desperate to take their place, but they cannot because the government bails out failure.

you dont know that. I am going to assume that you have no idea how much was required on infrastructure spending. Just another claim you cant back up.

intellectual response, not a Martin response. Since you know how the economy works so well. Tell me how that would have been good for the economy for those companies to fail. Deregulation allowed those companies to become so big and poorly run.

CajunlostinCali · 06-10-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

dont reward incompetence with bailouts. there are other companies out there desperate to take their place, but they cannot because the government bails out failure.

How is it Obama cannot reward these banks when it was he himself pushing for the same policies that got the banks into the jam they are in now?

I believe there is reality and then there is opinion. We all are unfortunately stuck with both.

KyleK · 06-10-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

You just said that spending is fine when its on infrastructure and education, which most of the stimilus is. Or do you want to walk back that claim too?

Most of the stimulus is NOT going toward infrastructure.

Quote:

Most of the roughly $300 billion coming directly to the states is being funneled through existing government programs for health care, education, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social services.

“We all talked about 'shovel-ready' since September and assumed it was a whole lot of paving and building when, in fact, that's not the case,” said Chris Whatley, the Washington director of the Council of State Governments, a trade group for state governments. He estimates states will get three times more money for education than for transportation.

Two-thirds of recovery money that flows directly to states will go toward health care.

LINK

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KyleK

Most of the stimulus is NOT going toward infrastructure.

LINK

education is infrastructure, but thanks for the link.

http://www.propublica.org/special/th...st-of-spending

martin · 06-10-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

you dont know that. I am going to assume that you have no idea how much was required on infrastructure spending. Just another claim you cant back up.

i do know that. we do not require massive spending and debt to maintain our infrastructure.

Quote:

intellectual response, not a Martin response.

keep talking to me this way and you will never talk to me again. your choice.

Quote:

Since you know how the economy works so well. Tell me how that would have been good for the economy for those companies to fail. Deregulation allowed those companies to become so big and poorly run.

i just told you. better companies would replace them. do you think the market for the services they provide would simply disappear? if these companies are so poorly run then wouldnt you be ok with them being replaced by companies that are run properly?

if you are a competitor to these companies, and you have been responsible and need no bailout, and are happy to take on the clients of the failing comapnies, why is it fair that you get nothing while the government bails out your competition? do you not see how this rewards failure and punishes responsibility?

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:36 PM

More breakdown on the stimulus bill.

Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package - washingtonpost.com

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

i do know that. we do not require massive spending and debt to maintain our infrastructure.

keep talking to me this way and you will never talk to me again. your choice.

i just told you. better companies would replace them. do you think the market for the services they provide would simply disappear? if these companies are so poorly run then wouldnt you be ok with them being replaced by companies that are run properly?

if you are a competitor to these companies, and you have been responsible and need no bailout, and are happy to take on the clients of the failing comapnies, why is it fair that you get nothing while the government bails out your competition? do you not see how this rewards failure and punishes responsibility?

Dont be a hypocrite, you can call people stupid and ignorant, but you get your thongs in a wad when it comes back at you.

Id still sleep just as well as I did last night, if you talked to me or not. Dont flatter yourself, Tonto!

I'll talk to you the way you talk to me.

You dont know how much it would cost to upgrade our current infrastructure. Alot of our infrastructure (in my opinion) is out dated and needs alot of work. Just asked the people who fell off that bridge in Minnesota.

martin · 06-10-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

Dont be a hypocrite, you can call people stupid and ignorant, but you get your thongs in a wad when it comes back at you.

i am not opposed to hypocrisy. i like to call people stupid and ignorant sometimes. but i also know it is a pleasure to talk to me so i will require you to do what i ask or deny you the pleasure. show some respect to your superiors.

so did you understand my explanation of the bailouts or not?

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:43 PM

Financing America?s Infrastructure | The New America Foundation

America’s basic infrastructure is outdated, worn, and in some cases, failing. Most experts agree that it is inadequate for meeting the demands of the 21st-century global economy. If we are to remain competitive, we must invest in capital assets like roads, ports, bridges, mass transit, water systems, and broadband infrastructure. Many other countries -- both rich and poor -- see investing in infrastructure as imperative for economic survival and success in an increasingly competitive economic environment. But the United States has lagged in infrastructure investment, in both relative and absolute terms. We are spending less than 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure, while China and India are spending 9 percent and 5 percent of GDP, respectively.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

i am not opposed to hypocrisy. i like to call people stupid and ignorant sometimes. but i also know it is a pleasure to talk to me so i will require you to do what i ask or deny you the pleasure. show some respect to your superiors.

so did you understand my explanation of the bailouts or not?

lol, keep telling yourself that buddy. You might actually believe that someday. Just not today. If it makes you feel better, go get in the mirror and say it a few times.
I really dont give a shyt about talking to you, pleasure being subjective here, Id rather get a prostate exam from your mother. Now thats some ignorance for you.

Yes I understand what you are saying, doesnt make it a fact. Failure of that magnitude would have cause consumer confidence to be at 0. Nobody in their right mind would have taken their money out of Bank of America if it would have collapsed to put their trust in another massive bank like Wells Fargo.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:53 PM

You are a pretty funny guy, but dont catch feelings behind something that you do as well.

martin · 06-10-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

I really dont give a shyt about talking to you, pleasure being subjective here, Id rather get a prostate exam from your mother. Now thats some ignorance for you.

you sure are replying a lot for a guy who doesnt care to talk.

Quote:

Yes I understand what you are saying, doesnt make it a fact. Failure of that magnitude would have cause consumer confidence to be at 0. Nobody in their right mind would have taken their money out of Bank of America if it would have collapsed to put their trust in another massive bank like Wells Fargo.

correct, they would put their money in other places. which would be fine. perhaps they would buy gold or real estate or something else.

it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to save these private businesses. when we do prop them up, like i said, it punishes the guys who are doing things right.

i have bad news for you boss. you just are not smart enough to be interesting. i am gonna go ahead and ignore you from here on out. cherish the times we talked.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martin

you sure are replying a lot for a guy who doesnt care to talk.

correct, they would put their money in other places. which would be fine. perhaps they would buy gold or real estate or something else.

it is not the responsibility of the taxpayer to save these private businesses. when we do prop them up, like i said, it punishes the guys who are doing things right.

i have bad news for you boss. you just are not smart enough to be interesting. i am gonna go ahead and ignore you from here on out. cherish the times we talked.

I figure you would run, which is cool with me. You re just not smart enough to recognize how ignorant and hypocritcal you are. So have fun with the ignore button, maam.

mobius481 · 06-10-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

If seen you make a remark like that at least once. I agree that there shouldnt be higher taxes/revenue, whatever word you want to use. I said taxes in the same sentence. If you liked to split hairs

I wasn't trying to take a shot at you over using revenue instead of taxes. I just think we lose the real meaning in government too often when we don't realize that we're spending our own money and not some money that just grows on trees.

Quote:

Is spending bad if/when it creates alot of jobs? Can you answer that honestly, because Im torn on the answer myself.

I guess the question is how do you quantify that. Obviously government spending to stimulate the economy is good but it's rarely done efficiently which in turn makes it bad. I would argue the light rail from vegas to LA for example is an instance where the government is spending money to creat jobs but is certainly not an efficient use of the public's money. How can it be? Creating governmental departments creates jobs but in the long run it doesn't help the economy. There is a difference between creating jobs and helping the economy. Creating jobs is does not necessarily improve the economy long term if the cost of those jobs creates more of a burden on the system. The opposite is true as well. If you can figure out the total effect of government intervention of the economy under specific circumstances then you'll be a far wealthier man than anyone has ever been.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 02:11 PM

Thats reasonable I can agree with some of that.

mobius481 · 06-10-2009, 02:12 PM

damn, looks like you guys have been going at it for a while there.

LSUMASTERMIND · 06-10-2009, 02:14 PM

yea he got a little upset or something I dont know. lol
he put me on ignore. big bad wolf here.
I would have actually agreed with some of the stuff he said, but he was being a hypocrite.

LSUsupaFan · 06-10-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LSUMASTERMIND

[/B]

I figure you would run, which is cool with me. You re just not smart enough to recognize how ignorant and hypocritcal you are. So have fun with the ignore button, maam.

martin is 100% correct. Look at the economic problems Japan and South Korea of about 10-15 years ago. Japan did everything they could to bailoyut companies and keep them from failing. South Korea let the weak companies fail and stronger companies emerged and prospered.

Japan's economy has been mostly stagnant since then, and the government is crippled by huge amounts of debt. South Korea has had one of the best growing economies and has a lean government.

The Asian balance sheet recessions are the perfect case study for what we are experiencing now. Bush took the Japanese route and Obama followed suit and is quadrupling Bush's mistakes, and this is before his nightmare trillion dollar healthcare scam..er... plan is voted into effect.

06-10-2009, 12:50 PM	#78
martin Registered Guest Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Queens, NYC Posts: 12,104	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ so we are clear, it is your contention that obama has reduced overall spending? __________________ thanks for reading.

06-10-2009, 01:36 PM	#88
LSUMASTERMIND Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,866	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ More breakdown on the stimulus bill. Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package - washingtonpost.com Attached Thumbnails __________________ -Henry Smith gross national debt as a percent of GDP Reagan 1st term: +7.3% Reagan 2nd term: +11.2% Bush: +12.2% Clinton 1st term: +3% Clinton 2nd term: -9.8% Bush 1st term: +5.6% Bush 2nd term: 6.3%

06-10-2009, 01:43 PM	#91
LSUMASTERMIND Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,866	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ Financing America?s Infrastructure \| The New America Foundation America’s basic infrastructure is outdated, worn, and in some cases, failing. Most experts agree that it is inadequate for meeting the demands of the 21st-century global economy. If we are to remain competitive, we must invest in capital assets like roads, ports, bridges, mass transit, water systems, and broadband infrastructure. Many other countries -- both rich and poor -- see investing in infrastructure as imperative for economic survival and success in an increasingly competitive economic environment. But the United States has lagged in infrastructure investment, in both relative and absolute terms. We are spending less than 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure, while China and India are spending 9 percent and 5 percent of GDP, respectively. __________________ -Henry Smith gross national debt as a percent of GDP Reagan 1st term: +7.3% Reagan 2nd term: +11.2% Bush: +12.2% Clinton 1st term: +3% Clinton 2nd term: -9.8% Bush 1st term: +5.6% Bush 2nd term: 6.3%

06-10-2009, 01:53 PM	#93
LSUMASTERMIND Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,866	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ You are a pretty funny guy, but dont catch feelings behind something that you do as well. __________________ -Henry Smith gross national debt as a percent of GDP Reagan 1st term: +7.3% Reagan 2nd term: +11.2% Bush: +12.2% Clinton 1st term: +3% Clinton 2nd term: -9.8% Bush 1st term: +5.6% Bush 2nd term: 6.3%

06-10-2009, 02:11 PM	#97
LSUMASTERMIND Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,866	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ Thats reasonable I can agree with some of that. __________________ -Henry Smith gross national debt as a percent of GDP Reagan 1st term: +7.3% Reagan 2nd term: +11.2% Bush: +12.2% Clinton 1st term: +3% Clinton 2nd term: -9.8% Bush 1st term: +5.6% Bush 2nd term: 6.3%

06-10-2009, 02:12 PM	#98
mobius481 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Lake Charles Posts: 3,209	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ damn, looks like you guys have been going at it for a while there.

06-10-2009, 02:14 PM	#99
LSUMASTERMIND Contributing Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,866	Re: Gingrich at Republican Fundraiser Says Obama’s ‘Already Failed’ yea he got a little upset or something I dont know. lol he put me on ignore. big bad wolf here. I would have actually agreed with some of the stuff he said, but he was being a hypocrite. __________________ -Henry Smith gross national debt as a percent of GDP Reagan 1st term: +7.3% Reagan 2nd term: +11.2% Bush: +12.2% Clinton 1st term: +3% Clinton 2nd term: -9.8% Bush 1st term: +5.6% Bush 2nd term: 6.3%

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search