Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election


  • Please log in to reply
2022 replies to this topic

Poll: Obama vs Romney (329 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Obama (279 votes [85.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.32%

  2. Romney (48 votes [14.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#421 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:47 PM

I'm a Canadian. And it is simply an empirical fact that if Nader had not run, Gore would have been president. Google the state by state vote totals some time.

What's also an empirical fact by your loose terminology is if Bush had not run, Gore would have been President. Damn other people besides Gore running.

As for the bailout... your paragraph was borderline incomprehensible gibberish. With interest rates as low as they are, there is zero reason why the federal government shouldn't be borrowing more money to intervene in the economy. It costs them literally nothing in the long run. And using that money to save hundreds of thousands jobs that otherwise would have disappeared entirely is one of the best uses possible. How anyone can be against the GM bailout while still pretending to be for the people is insane.

Your use of terms like "toxic debt" and "long term interest" is completely erroneous and demonstrates that you pretty much have no clue what you're talking about.

What I really laughed at is "Bush turned Clinton's surplus into debt", "Gore wouldn't have created this mess", "US government borrowing costs them nothing in the long run".

What I don't see you saying, due to Sharpshooter-like fellating of the Democratic party is.. "Clinton's surplus was a single budget year through which the Republican Congress grinded his balls to pass a fiscally responsible budget, overall Clinton ran the highest debt to date by the end of his Presidency" , or "Clinton eased lending regulations that helped artificially blow up the housing market", or "I can't believe I just posted that kind of stupidity blaming third parties for messiah Gore's 2000 loss". Hard to not believe you're American with how butthurt you are about that, but then again I see fellow Canadians also sucking up to the Democratic party for no good reason, so you're in good company.
  • 1

#422 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:49 PM

What's also an empirical fact by your loose terminology is if Bush had not run, Gore would have been President. Damn other people besides Gore running.


What I really laughed at is "Bush turned Clinton's surplus into debt", "Gore wouldn't have created this mess", "US government borrowing costs them nothing in the long run".

What I don't see you saying, due to Sharpshooter-like fellating of the Democratic party is.. "Clinton's surplus was a single budget year through which the Republican Congress grinded his balls to pass a fiscally responsible budget, overall Clinton ran the highest debt to date by the end of his Presidency" , or "Clinton eased lending regulations that helped artificially blow up the housing market", or "I can't believe I just posted that kind of stupidity blaming third parties for messiah Gore's 2000 loss". Hard to not believe you're American with how butthurt you are about that, but then again I see fellow Canadians also sucking up to the Democratic party for no good reason, so you're in good company.


Condescension .. what a surprise .. :bored:
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#423 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,704 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 07 September 2012 - 10:28 PM

Condescension .. what a surprise .. :bored:


It comes from both sides of the political spectrum.
  • 0

#424 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,818 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:09 PM

Jennifer Granholm was Canadian born, and she was stirring the pot .. love that lady!! .. Schweitzer is a real smart guy too .. throwing that GOP rhetoric back at em had got to raise their hackles, so to speak .. :lol:


she was born in Vancouver

love her speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5mw_6s5vh8

Edited by Jaimito, 07 September 2012 - 11:13 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#425 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:18 PM

Rarely do I find a headline humourous but:

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2
Obama speaks to Americans as adults



I lol'd.

What more, that article articulates, in a not-so-overt fashion, why parties are more like sports teams, combining the fanaticism of sports teams with politics and politicians is asking for a disaster. Politicians successfully branded themselves like the Marlboro Man for you to personally associate with and forget you're hiring them for a job, instead cheer them on like they're your team. Problem #1.

Edited by zaibatsu, 07 September 2012 - 11:19 PM.

  • 0

#426 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:27 PM

Cleaning Up the Economy
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 6, 2012

Bill Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention was a remarkable combination of pretty serious wonkishness — has there ever been a convention speech with that much policy detail? — and memorable zingers. Perhaps the best of those zingers was his sarcastic summary of the Republican case for denying President Obama re-election: “We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in.”


Great line. But is the mess really getting cleaned up?

The answer, I would argue, is yes. The next four years are likely to be much better than the last four years — unless misguided policies create another mess.

In saying this, I’m not making excuses for the past. Job growth has been much slower and unemployment much higher than it should have been, even given the mess Mr. Obama inherited. More on that later. But, first, let’s look at what has been accomplished.

On Inauguration Day 2009, the U.S. economy faced three main problems. First, and most pressing, there was a crisis in the financial system, with many of the crucial channels of credit frozen; we were, in effect, suffering the 21st-century version of the bank runs that brought on the Great Depression. Second, the economy was taking a major hit from the collapse of a gigantic housing bubble. Third, consumer spending was being held down by high levels of household debt, much of which had been run up during the Bush-era bubble.

The first of these problems was resolved quite quickly, thanks both to lots of emergency lending by the Federal Reserve and, yes, the much maligned bank bailouts. By late 2009, measures of financial stress were more or less back to normal.

This return to financial normalcy did not, however, produce a robust recovery. Fast recoveries are almost always led by a housing boom — and given the excess home construction that took place during the bubble, that just wasn’t going to happen. Meanwhile, households were trying (or being forced by creditors) to pay down debt, which meant depressed demand. So the economy’s free fall ended, but recovery remained sluggish.

Now, you may have noticed that in telling this story about a disappointing recovery I didn’t mention any of the things that Republicans talked about last week in Tampa, Fla. — the effects of high taxes and regulation, the lack of confidence supposedly created by Mr. Obama’s failure to lavish enough praise on “job creators” (what I call the “Ma, he’s looking at me funny!” theory of our economic problems). Why the omission? Because there’s not a shred of evidence for the G.O.P. theory of what ails our economy, while there’s a lot of hard evidence for the view that a lack of demand, largely because of excessive household debt, is the real problem.

And here’s the good news: The forces that have been holding the economy back seem likely to fade away in the years ahead. Housing starts have been at extremely low levels for years, so the overhang of excess construction from the bubble years is long past — and it looks as if a housing recovery has already begun. Household debt is still high by historical standards, but the ratio of debt to G.D.P. is way down from its peak, setting the stage for stronger consumer demand looking forward.

And what about business investment? It has actually been recovering rapidly since late 2009, and there’s every reason to expect it to keep rising as businesses see rising demand for their products.

So, as I said, the odds are that barring major mistakes, the next four years will be much better than the past four years.

Does this mean that U.S. economic policy has done a good job? Not at all.

Bill Clinton said of the problems Mr. Obama confronted on taking office, “No one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.” If, by that, he meant the overhang of debt, that’s very much the case. But we should have had strong policies to mitigate the pain while households worked down their debt, as well as policies to help reduce the debt — above all, relief for underwater homeowners.

The policies we actually got were far from adequate. Debt relief, in particular, has been a bust — and you can argue that this was, in large part, because the Obama administration never took it seriously.

But, that said, Mr. Obama did push through policies — the auto bailout and the Recovery Act — that made the slump a lot less awful than it might have been. And despite Mitt Romney’s attempt to rewrite history on the bailout, the fact is that Republicans bitterly opposed both measures, as well as everything else the president has proposed.

So Bill Clinton basically had it right: For all the pain America has suffered on his watch, Mr. Obama can fairly claim to have helped the country get through a very bad patch, from which it is starting to emerge.

http://www.nytimes.c...ner=rss&emc=rss


  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#427 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:40 PM

Bush won Florida by 750 votes (officially). Nader got 97,000 votes.

But no, voting for Nader didn't have any negative consequences whatsoever. Keep believing that!


last time I checked... it didn't. Nader lost, thus he didn't make any policies that hurt the american people.
  • 0

#428 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:46 PM

last time I checked... it didn't. Nader lost, thus he didn't make any policies that hurt the american people.


The 97,000 ballots cast for him prevented many policies that would have helped the american people from coming into fruition.

Though to be honest, I doubt that would have prevented the election from being manipulated into a Bush win anyways. They bought themselves an election, and then when they almost lost it, they stole it and implemented their 8 year dine n' dash before handing the mess to the black guy to clean up.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#429 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,704 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:57 PM

The 97,000 ballots cast for him prevented many policies that would have helped the american people from coming into fruition.

Though to be honest, I doubt that would have prevented the election from being manipulated into a Bush win anyways. They bought themselves an election, and then when they almost lost it, they stole it and implemented their 8 year dine n' dash before handing the mess to the black guy to clean up.


Americans could have limited it to 4. Where's that argument?
  • 0

#430 Zamboni_14

Zamboni_14

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,550 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 12:09 AM

The 97,000 ballots cast for him prevented many policies that would have helped the american people from coming into fruition.

Though to be honest, I doubt that would have prevented the election from being manipulated into a Bush win anyways. They bought themselves an election, and then when they almost lost it, they stole it and implemented their 8 year dine n' dash before handing the mess to the black guy to clean up.


97,000 didn't agree with Gore or Bush... and saying that Gore's policies would have been better is just speculation (yes odds are that it would have been better than what Bush did... but I STILL wouldn't vote for Gore knowing the outcome.)
  • 0

#431 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 01:12 AM

Americans could have limited it to 4. Where's that argument?


They could have, but then they swiftboated Kerry and pulled out all the stops and dirty tricks in their playbook to get Bush re-elected. Where's your memory?

97,000 didn't agree with Gore or Bush... and saying that Gore's policies would have been better is just speculation (yes odds are that it would have been better than what Bush did... but I STILL wouldn't vote for Gore knowing the outcome.)


Then you're a sadist.
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#432 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 08 September 2012 - 04:33 AM

I'm going to disagree... slightly... on the idea of the media's job being to explain how things will effect people. When the media tries to explain things, that's when they have a total failure. People like Maddow, Hannity, Beck, etc. do that all the time, and that's where the biggest lies/spin comes from. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind having an opinion based show... but don't allow it to be advertised as "fact" or give them "freedom of the press" if it's nothing but slander and spin. Make them put their necks out there when they toss out things like "Obama's trip to India cost tax payers $2 billion." I don't care what source you got that from... if it isn't true and you report it (say it as "FACT") you shouldn't be protected from misleading the population and should possibly face some kind of punishment (fine, suspended, fired, etc.)


Oh, I completely agree. But I think we're saying slightly different things. When you say "when they try" (bolded above)... I meant it differently. When I said the media "fails" I didn't mean in in the sense that they try but fail; I meant it in the sense that they intentionally don't do their jobs in order to serve their own motives. Everything else you said I totally agree with, there should be something that holds them accountable, but there isn't and likely won't ever be. But does that mean we should never expect analysis of politics?

It would be nice if people actually took the time to read into things for themselves, but because of the current media spin... people feel they don't need to read into things, because someone else will do that for them and give them the "meat" of the issue. Again, that's why people like Hannity are being watched, because they are doing their "spin" on what they think will happen based on decisions that were made by the president/congress. And in the end, people will either eat it up and believe everything... or they will just shrug it off as being total lies.


Agreed. But again, there's no way to stop Hannity & co, and there's no way to get most people to educate themselves.

So I agree that media does fail, but I think the reason why it does fail is that too much "opinion" is being handed out as "fact."


Yup, definitely. And on purpose. But what are the alternatives? For me it's too seek out shows that hand out more facts than opinion, like TYT, even if their personal ideologies are biased. For you it's to use factchecking sites.

But like I was saying before, I can look at politifact and see that Paul Ryan saying that Obama stole $716 from medicare is rated "mostly untrue" but I still won't have a clue about what Obamacare means for me and my family, nor what Ryan is proposing or what his plan might mean. How does it really help me understand anything? It's not enough info, and no one has time to read the 2000-page Obamacare document (and this is for just one issue!) Like it or not, people need some form of media analysis to get the whole story on politics. I have no solution to this, except to try to find the "best" most honest examples of reporting I can find.

Edited by Columbo, 08 September 2012 - 04:35 AM.

  • 0

#433 mrawfull

mrawfull

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined: 13-November 11

Posted 08 September 2012 - 07:56 AM

But like I was saying before, I can look at politifact and see that Paul Ryan saying that Obama stole $716 from medicare is rated "mostly untrue" but I still won't have a clue about what Obamacare means for me and my family, nor what Ryan is proposing or what his plan might mean. How does it really help me understand anything? It's not enough info, and no one has time to read the 2000-page Obamacare document (and this is for just one issue!) Like it or not, people need some form of media analysis to get the whole story on politics. I have no solution to this, except to try to find the "best" most honest examples of reporting I can find.



Well, here it is. Everything you ever needed to know about Obamacare:


  • 0

#434 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,303 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 08 September 2012 - 08:37 AM

Strange how the job market is still crap (crappy low income part time jobs replacing middle class full time jobs), the middle class gap and thus income gap in general is still widening, the primary beneficiaries of bailout money were shareholders and high up corporate douchebags given a golden parachute. The addition of toxic debt and long term interest to the federal government's books (to throw on top of the other interest pile that is going to surpass defence spending soon enough) was not worth the short term stupidity. Unfortunately people have become so accustomed to government interfering in the economy so much they don't know what a terrible intervention is.. and this was amongst the most catastrophic ones to go with bailing out the financials. No lesson learned, a larger debt.. yay pro middle class thing!

This doesn't make a lot of sense. You were criticizing Obama for the bailout of the auto industry, which as Boxie pointed out saved thousands of jobs, yet you also criticize his record on jobs.

It may be that the unemployment situation is bad, but it would be far worse without the bailouts, which in the case of the auto industry have proved to be absolutely the right thing to do.

Feel free to complain about the lack of new job creation, but whining about the auto bailout in the same breath makes no sense, other than to show that you're just looking for things to complain about.

Americans could have limited it to 4. Where's that argument?

This is the real puzzler. Fool me once.....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#435 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:00 AM

This doesn't make a lot of sense. You were criticizing Obama for the bailout of the auto industry, which as Boxie pointed out saved thousands of jobs, yet you also criticize his record on jobs.

It may be that the unemployment situation is bad, but it would be far worse without the bailouts, which in the case of the auto industry have proved to be absolutely the right thing to do.

Feel free to complain about the lack of new job creation, but whining about the auto bailout in the same breath makes no sense, other than to show that you're just looking for things to complain about.


This is the real puzzler. Fool me once.....

1. I criticized both Obama and Bush for their bailouts of the auto industry and the financials. You Obama sycophants seem to forget it wasn't Obama who started the bailouts.

2. The economy and unemployment situations would be immediately worse and they should be because the economy needed to normalise from the effects of an enormous bubble created by government to artificially grow the economy. You really should take a couple economics courses to understand what effects government intervention has on an economy.

3. No bailouts would have resulted in those people losing their jobs, but that's okay too. Why? Because an economy that can sustain itself without government holding it up is a far better scenario for the long run than what you see now, where government is so up to their eyeballs in debt the amount of interest payments per fiscal year is going to, in a few years, be higher than inflated defense spending, and debt will be surpassing GDP, hence why the US's credit is plummeting on fears it won't be able to pay back it's debts it continues to accumulate in the long run for your so cheered on government sustained economy. So no, the bailouts have not been proven whatsoever to be the right thing to do. :lol: The stupidity and sheer ignorance of your statement almost knocked me out of my chair laughing.

4. Your spiel about job creation and the bailout makes zero sense, and likely you failed to read what I was responding to to get an idea of what I was posting.

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 September 2012 - 09:02 AM.

  • 0

#436 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 09:34 AM

"Stupidity and sheer ignorance"? .. pot-kettle? .. insulting cretinous statements? :sadno: .. I thought there were rules about personal attacks?
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#437 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 08 September 2012 - 12:13 PM

They could have, but then they swiftboated Kerry and pulled out all the stops and dirty tricks in their playbook to get Bush re-elected. Where's your memory?


Then you're a sadist.


You nailed it, Sharpshooter. Anyone who can look back at 2000-2008 and STILL think that Gore would have been "just as bad" as Bush is either completely ignorant or utterly callous to human suffering. More likely both.
  • 0

#438 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 08 September 2012 - 12:19 PM

1. I criticized both Obama and Bush for their bailouts of the auto industry and the financials. You Obama sycophants seem to forget it wasn't Obama who started the bailouts.

2. The economy and unemployment situations would be immediately worse and they should be because the economy needed to normalise from the effects of an enormous bubble created by government to artificially grow the economy. You really should take a couple economics courses to understand what effects government intervention has on an economy.

3. No bailouts would have resulted in those people losing their jobs, but that's okay too. Why? Because an economy that can sustain itself without government holding it up is a far better scenario for the long run than what you see now, where government is so up to their eyeballs in debt the amount of interest payments per fiscal year is going to, in a few years, be higher than inflated defense spending, and debt will be surpassing GDP, hence why the US's credit is plummeting on fears it won't be able to pay back it's debts it continues to accumulate in the long run for your so cheered on government sustained economy. So no, the bailouts have not been proven whatsoever to be the right thing to do. :lol: The stupidity and sheer ignorance of your statement almost knocked me out of my chair laughing.


4. Your spiel about job creation and the bailout makes zero sense, and likely you failed to read what I was responding to to get an idea of what I was posting.


As I said, completely ignorant and utterly callous.

The idea that the economy needed to "normalize" and that people needed to lose their jobs and suffer is just complete nonsense. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. The only effect that people losing jobs has is to send the economy further into recession.

I desperately hope that you are still in high school because the thought of an adult sincerely holding these opinions is incredibly depressing. Hopefully you'll grow out of it though.
  • 0

#439 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 12:52 PM

As I said, completely ignorant and utterly callous.

How ironic that this is said often about science. Are you a religious nut?

The idea that the economy needed to "normalize" and that people needed to lose their jobs and suffer is just complete nonsense. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. The only effect that people losing jobs has is to send the economy further into recession.

Lose their jobs and "suffer".. nice red herring. Jobs would be lost as a result of downsizing capital to put more into paying debt but this is phony capital to begin with, which you obviously refuse to acknowledge altogether. A "recession" is part of a normalisation process, especially when governments interfere too much in an economy to artificially inflate it. Greece is going through the exact same thing except they don't have both the sheer size economy the US has nor the reserve currency status the US has to try and print their way out of debt. You're far too focused on the word "recession" rather than what it's a product of and how to fix it. No surprise there. Big government's wet dream responding to me here.

I desperately hope that you are still in high school because the thought of an adult sincerely holding these opinions is incredibly depressing. Hopefully you'll grow out of it though.

The only type of person that would suggest the things you have is one who has the sight of a blind person.

The government's excessive intervention and interference is what created the problem, then you want to blow up the bank and give government more money to perpetuate the problem and temporarily keep the country's artificial capital afloat so you can feel better about short term economic help? Please save me the "adult" talk until you can educate yourself beyond politician's talking points.

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 September 2012 - 12:54 PM.

  • 0

#440 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 08 September 2012 - 12:55 PM

1. I criticized both Obama and Bush for their bailouts of the auto industry and the financials. You Obama sycophants seem to forget it wasn't Obama who started the bailouts.

2. The economy and unemployment situations would be immediately worse and they should be because the economy needed to normalise from the effects of an enormous bubble created by government to artificially grow the economy. You really should take a couple economics courses to understand what effects government intervention has on an economy.

3. No bailouts would have resulted in those people losing their jobs, but that's okay too. Why? Because an economy that can sustain itself without government holding it up is a far better scenario for the long run than what you see now, where government is so up to their eyeballs in debt the amount of interest payments per fiscal year is going to, in a few years, be higher than inflated defense spending, and debt will be surpassing GDP, hence why the US's credit is plummeting on fears it won't be able to pay back it's debts it continues to accumulate in the long run for your so cheered on government sustained economy. So no, the bailouts have not been proven whatsoever to be the right thing to do. :lol: The stupidity and sheer ignorance of your statement almost knocked me out of my chair laughing.

4. Your spiel about job creation and the bailout makes zero sense, and likely you failed to read what I was responding to to get an idea of what I was posting.


Without all the influx of money, to the banks, and the auto industry, the US of A would be in far worse condition now than it was in '07/'08. The stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed. Rome was crumbling and the heads of AIG were worried about severance packages. The Auto makers CEO's flew to Washington in their Lear Jets. One part of me was saying let them fail, but overall, that would have been a much worse disaster. Even still these greedy ***tards are still reaping in bonuses, salary packages, and severance that are equal to or more than before. This is why you are in trouble. They don't get it!, and you don't get it! Regulating banks would be a start. But to Americans, that's socialism.
How many Canadian banks needed stimulus money? NONE! They are regulated.
  • 0

#441 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 01:05 PM

Without all the influx of money, to the banks, and the auto industry, the US of A would be in far worse condition now than it was in '07/'08. The stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed. Rome was crumbling and the heads of AIG were worried about severance packages. The Auto makers CEO's flew to Washington in their Lear Jets. One part of me was saying let them fail, but overall, that would have been a much worse disaster. Even still these greedy ***tards are still reaping in bonuses, salary packages, and severance that are equal to or more than before. This is why you are in trouble. They don't get it!, and you don't get it! Regulating banks would be a start. But to Americans, that's socialism.
How many Canadian banks needed stimulus money? NONE! They are regulated.

Okay, if the "stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed" what message is that sending to businesses who are either corrupt or simply run themselves into the ground fully expecting a bailout? Come get some money! Too big to fail! Because the fat cheques first and foremost went to those very people who ran the businesses/financials into the ground either for their jets or their golden parachutes, if not both.. the workers were still screwed.

In no way shape or form is it a good idea for government to bail out businesses who cannot compete in the market because it both sends a message that encourages bad business decisions and encourages too close a relationship between private enterprise and government, much like that with the past several administrations with the auto industry, Goldman Sachs and the other financials, etc. If the corruption with PAC money, campaign financing, and tit-for-tat government rewards/subsidies/bailouts etc. isn't a clue enough as to why this is a bad thing..

Edited by zaibatsu, 08 September 2012 - 01:10 PM.

  • 0

#442 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,818 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 08 September 2012 - 05:23 PM

Okay, if the "stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed" what message is that sending to businesses who are either corrupt or simply run themselves into the ground fully expecting a bailout? Come get some money! Too big to fail! Because the fat cheques first and foremost went to those very people who ran the businesses/financials into the ground either for their jets or their golden parachutes, if not both.. the workers were still screwed.

In no way shape or form is it a good idea for government to bail out businesses who cannot compete in the market because it both sends a message that encourages bad business decisions and encourages too close a relationship between private enterprise and government, much like that with the past several administrations with the auto industry, Goldman Sachs and the other financials, etc. If the corruption with PAC money, campaign financing, and tit-for-tat government rewards/subsidies/bailouts etc. isn't a clue enough as to why this is a bad thing..


bailouts are unpopular obviously. but in the 2008/9 collapse, it was necessary to prevent a depression. it wasnt just a few businesses, but tons of banks and financial sector, which is the main backbone of US economy now that they dont manufacture much anymore. the auto industry was about to go under too.

I remember so many banks disappeared in 2008. any president would had to do it. bush did it, then obama did it. if there's any fault, it was that it wasn't big enough, the hole was bigger than they estimated. gop said the bailout was too big, but in retrospect it still wasnt big enough.

the alternative is depression, which is not acceptable.
  • 0
Posted Image

#443 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 06:08 PM

Without all the influx of money, to the banks, and the auto industry, the US of A would be in far worse condition now than it was in '07/'08. The stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed. Rome was crumbling and the heads of AIG were worried about severance packages. The Auto makers CEO's flew to Washington in their Lear Jets. One part of me was saying let them fail, but overall, that would have been a much worse disaster. Even still these greedy ***tards are still reaping in bonuses, salary packages, and severance that are equal to or more than before. This is why you are in trouble. They don't get it!, and you don't get it! Regulating banks would be a start. But to Americans, that's socialism.
How many Canadian banks needed stimulus money? NONE! They are regulated.


He bailed out on the US and moved north to Canada for the affordable health care .. zaibatsu that is .. he just likes to stir the pot from his "mount of wisdom" up here sponging off the Govt teat .. :)
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#444 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 08 September 2012 - 07:37 PM

Okay, if the "stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed" what message is that sending to businesses who are either corrupt or simply run themselves into the ground fully expecting a bailout? Come get some money! Too big to fail! Because the fat cheques first and foremost went to those very people who ran the businesses/financials into the ground either for their jets or their golden parachutes, if not both.. the workers were still screwed.

In no way shape or form is it a good idea for government to bail out businesses who cannot compete in the market because it both sends a message that encourages bad business decisions and encourages too close a relationship between private enterprise and government, much like that with the past several administrations with the auto industry, Goldman Sachs and the other financials, etc. If the corruption with PAC money, campaign financing, and tit-for-tat government rewards/subsidies/bailouts etc. isn't a clue enough as to why this is a bad thing..


You talk in circles. Now all those banks and auto manufacturers are corrupt, more reason for regulating them. You still don't think that giving the auto industry a hand wasn't a good thing? They saved, I believe 100k related auto industry jobs, and the big three, have paid their debts. Actually Ford didn't need any, or so it was said. If you think this is "a bad thing", I guess there is no way to change your view.
  • 0

#445 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:31 AM

You talk in circles. Now all those banks and auto manufacturers are corrupt, more reason for regulating them. You still don't think that giving the auto industry a hand wasn't a good thing? They saved, I believe 100k related auto industry jobs, and the big three, have paid their debts. Actually Ford didn't need any, or so it was said. If you think this is "a bad thing", I guess there is no way to change your view.

If by "paid their debts" you mean "a large chunk owned by US government", you're right, but what did I just say about the message being sent when bailing out failing businesses and how it doesn't fix the problem? Speaking of circles..

http://www.forbes.co...nkruptcy-again/

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again



President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.
Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on Tuesday. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.
Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.



http://www.factcheck...r-paid-in-full/


Chrysler Paid in Full?


Taxpayer beware: You have to read the fine print to know what the president means when he says Chrysler has paid back "every dime" of loans it received "during my watch." The company got $12.5 billion in bailout funds under the Bush and Obama administrations, but — despite what the president said — isn't expected to pay about $1.3 billion of it.

President Barack Obama visited a Chrysler plant in Toledo, Ohio, on June 3 to discuss the recent announcement that the Chrysler Group LLC repaid $5.1 billion in outstanding loans. That brought the total repayment, as of May 24, to $10.6 billion — about $1.9 billion less than the $12.5 billion the company borrowed under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.


In its May 24 announcement touting Chrysler's final repayment, Treasury acknowledged that it is "unlikely to fully recover" about $1.9 billion.


Treasury, May 24: Treasury committed a total of $12.5 billion to Chrysler under TARP’s Automotive Industry Financing Program (AIFP). With today’s transaction, Chrysler has returned more than $10.6 billion of that amount to taxpayers through principal repayments, interest, and cancelled commitments. Treasury continues to hold a 6.6 percent common equity stake in Chrysler. As previously stated, however, Treasury is unlikely to fully recover its remaining outstanding investment of $1.9 billion in Chrysler.


Since then, the administration has announced that it will sell its remaining Chrysler shares to Fiat, the Italian automaker that will now own a majority of the U.S. car company. Taxpayers will reap about $560 million from the stock sale, Treasury says. That still leaves taxpayers about $1.3 billion in the hole, and Treasury doesn't expect to ever get it back.


Treasury, June 2: Treasury is unlikely to fully recover the difference of $1.3 billion. Treasury has the right to recover proceeds from the disposition of the liquidation trust associated with the bankruptcy of Old Chrysler, but does not expect a material recovery from those assets.


We take no position on whether the government's investment in Chrysler was good public policy. We leave that for you to decide. But before you do, you should have all the facts. And the facts are that the automaker has not completely repaid the investments made by U.S. taxpayers, and that's the result of a decision by the Obama administration to forgive a significant portion of the original loan made by the previous administration.



Then we have..

http://online.wsj.co...2149103202.html

GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.

GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.


Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.

The tax benefit stems from so-called tax-loss carry-forwards and other provisions, which allow companies to use losses in prior years and costs related to pensions and other expenses to shield profits from U.S. taxes for up to 20 years. In GM's case, the losses stem from years prior to when GM entered bankruptcy.

Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.

But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.


Then we get into Ford, which while technically didn't take a bailout, was the one who started the process of attaining bailout funds for the big 3.. why? Simple, they had the same suppliers and would be heavily impacted by another bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler necessitating a bailout as well. Life isn't without irony and the irony here is Ford soon after put out a marketing campaign slamming the other two of the big 3 for accepting bailout funds while it was Ford's idea, and Ford would have been screwed if the other two went to bankruptcy. :lol:

How this mess is good for the taxpayers to absorb is beyond me, looks like it's a typical money grab at the behest of taxpayers. This moronic level of acceptance of excessive government intervention in the economy has it's consequences some of which we are already seeing with the devaluation of the US dollar and higher costs, and certainly will be exacerbated as the US continues to lose currency value, furthermore as countries continue diversifying away from the dollar, and of course as the US credit rating continues plummeting as well. Thankfully there's plenty of Obama sycophants who will re-elect him to give more money to his corporate masters, or the Romney rebels who think changing over to Romney will be any different whatsoever either. It's gonna be even more entertaining seeing the more dramatic results of so many stupid election choices.

Edited by zaibatsu, 09 September 2012 - 07:33 AM.

  • 0

#446 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,303 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 09 September 2012 - 08:26 AM

1. I criticized both Obama and Bush for their bailouts of the auto industry and the financials. You Obama sycophants seem to forget it wasn't Obama who started the bailouts.

2. The economy and unemployment situations would be immediately worse and they should be because the economy needed to normalise from the effects of an enormous bubble created by government to artificially grow the economy. You really should take a couple economics courses to understand what effects government intervention has on an economy.

3. No bailouts would have resulted in those people losing their jobs, but that's okay too. Why? Because an economy that can sustain itself without government holding it up is a far better scenario for the long run than what you see now, where government is so up to their eyeballs in debt the amount of interest payments per fiscal year is going to, in a few years, be higher than inflated defense spending, and debt will be surpassing GDP, hence why the US's credit is plummeting on fears it won't be able to pay back it's debts it continues to accumulate in the long run for your so cheered on government sustained economy. So no, the bailouts have not been proven whatsoever to be the right thing to do. :lol: The stupidity and sheer ignorance of your statement almost knocked me out of my chair laughing.

4. Your spiel about job creation and the bailout makes zero sense, and likely you failed to read what I was responding to to get an idea of what I was posting.

Imagine that; condescension and name-calling from zaibatsu....

Tell me were you born arrogant and unable to participate in a debate without being insulting, or is it something that you've cultivated over the years?

1) I don't care who started the bailouts. I stand by my assertion that it was necessary. I consider it one of the very few things that Dubya did right over his two terms.

2) I disagree that the US economy needed to "normalize" and from what I've read, so does everyone else in the thread, plus the last two American administrations. But of course, you have all the insight into what should have happened and the rest of the continent is wrong... :rolleyes:

3) It would have been "okay" for 100 thousand people to lose their jobs, according to you, but you'd still be here criticizing Obama on his jobs record.

"Take some economics courses"?, "Stupidity and sheer ignorance"?, and of course, the ubiquitous lol emoticon? The suggestion of expertise, condescension, topped off with a suspendable personal attack. It looks like you hit the arrogant, know-it-all trifecta. Nice work.

BTW: No-one here believes that you were "knocked out of your chair laughing". It's silly comments like that, plus your attempts at belittlement of other posters, that make it hard for anyone to take for anything but a troll.

4) In your opinion. (such as it is) Most reasonable people don't believe that it's necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to be out of work, just so things can normalize. Last I checked, feeding your family with food stamps is not "normal". YMMV.

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 09 September 2012 - 08:28 AM.

  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#447 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

Imagine that; condescension and name-calling from zaibatsu....

Tell me were you born arrogant and unable to participate in a debate without being insulting, or is it something that you've cultivated over the years?

1) I don't care who started the bailouts. I stand by my assertion that it was necessary. I consider it one of the very few things that Dubya did right over his two terms.

2) I disagree that the US economy needed to "normalize" and from what I've read, so does everyone else in the thread, plus the last two American administrations. But of course, you have all the insight into what should have happened and the rest of the continent is wrong... :rolleyes:

3) It would have been "okay" for 100 thousand people to lose their jobs, according to you, but you'd still be here criticizing Obama on his jobs record.

"Take some economics courses"?, "Stupidity and sheer ignorance"?, and of course, the ubiquitous lol emoticon? The suggestion of expertise, condescension, topped off with a suspendable personal attack. It looks like you hit the arrogant, know-it-all trifecta. Nice work.

BTW: No-one here believes that you were "knocked out of your chair laughing". It's silly comments like that, plus your attempts at belittlement of other posters, that make it hard for anyone to take for anything but a troll.

4) In your opinion. (such as it is) Most reasonable people don't believe that it's necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to be out of work, just so things can normalize. Last I checked, feeding your family with food stamps is not "normal". YMMV.

Imagine that, condescension followed by psychoanalysis of poster criticizing supposed condescension, hardly anything relating to the subject whatsoever besides repeating generalities, unlike what you quoted.. besides "everyone here on the Canucks board, North America, and world agrees with me therefore i r right", is there a reason to read any more of your posts going forward?
  • 1

#448 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:05 PM

Imagine that; condescension and name-calling from zaibatsu....

Tell me were you born arrogant and unable to participate in a debate without being insulting, or is it something that you've cultivated over the years?

1) I don't care who started the bailouts. I stand by my assertion that it was necessary. I consider it one of the very few things that Dubya did right over his two terms.

2) I disagree that the US economy needed to "normalize" and from what I've read, so does everyone else in the thread, plus the last two American administrations. But of course, you have all the insight into what should have happened and the rest of the continent is wrong... :rolleyes:

3) It would have been "okay" for 100 thousand people to lose their jobs, according to you, but you'd still be here criticizing Obama on his jobs record.

"Take some economics courses"?, "Stupidity and sheer ignorance"?, and of course, the ubiquitous lol emoticon? The suggestion of expertise, condescension, topped off with a suspendable personal attack. It looks like you hit the arrogant, know-it-all trifecta. Nice work.

BTW: No-one here believes that you were "knocked out of your chair laughing". It's silly comments like that, plus your attempts at belittlement of other posters, that make it hard for anyone to take for anything but a troll.

4) In your opinion. (such as it is) Most reasonable people don't believe that it's necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to be out of work, just so things can normalize. Last I checked, feeding your family with food stamps is not "normal". YMMV.



He's like Off Topic's CANUCKLELION, :lol:
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#449 chisoxin12

chisoxin12

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: 28-July 09

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:14 PM

Imagine that, condescension followed by psychoanalysis of poster criticizing supposed condescension, hardly anything relating to the subject whatsoever besides repeating generalities, unlike what you quoted.. besides "everyone here on the Canucks board, North America, and world agrees with me therefore i r right", is there a reason to read any more of your posts going forward?


Please, show me where this was said? Wow! The only people that believe and agree with anything you post, are tea party members and the far right Republican wing. As a Canadian, I don't believe anything coming from those wing-nuts. How are you enjoying our medical system, by the way? One more piece of legislation the Obama promised, but, is being stonewalled by the Republican controlled house. Why is it wrong that every American can't have affordable medical? Why aren't your banks regulated?
  • 1

#450 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,693 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 09 September 2012 - 12:33 PM

Well, as long as he does not use that "Sanford as Burke in a Boat" avatar .. that one is TOO much .. besides, he has half the Forum on ignore, so he misses half the retort to his trolling .. ::D
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.