Aug 16, 2010

One more reason not to vote for the party of no ideas in November


The news that General Motors Co. reported a second consecutive quarterly profit on Thursday is just one more reason why we should not give the keys back to the party of no in November that ran the economy into the ditch.

GM’s reported a $1.33 billion profit in the second quarter, but we need to remind people that the majority of Republicans were against the government loans that kept thousands of American workers employed and the economy growing after the Bush recession, the worst since the Great Depression.

The simple fact is Republicans have absolutely no plan for the economy, and when pressed for any idea at all, other than no, they basically want to go back to the disastrous Bush polices that almost threw us into a depression. They even want to go back to Bush’s awful plan of privatizing Social Security, and some teabagger Republicans actually want to do away with Social Security and Medicare.

Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly, and nine out of 10 individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits. Republicans want to do away with it? I guess that’s not surprising from a party that blocked unemployment benefits for workers while giving huge tax breaks to the richest 1 percent.

I can’t think of a single reason to vote for a Republican in November.

It was Democrats and President Obama who may have diverted another depression. There is no way that can be known for sure, but Economists Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics say Democrats diverted a depression.

According to the Associated Press, when “Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, the country was mired in the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.A crisis with subprime mortgages created panic dominos in the real estate, insurance, banking and auto industries, and credit markets virtually froze around the globe. Home values slid by $3.3 trillion in the last three months of 2008, Zillow Real Estate Reports said. The iconic Dow Jones industrial average plummeted from a high of 14,164 on Oct. 9, 2007, to a 12-year low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009. An average of 620,000 Americans lost their jobs every month from October 2008 to May 2009, and unemployment spiked from 5 percent in January 2008 to 10.1 percent in October 2009. The U.S. economy, as measured by gross domestic product, contracted by an annual rate of 6.3 percent in the last quarter of 2008 and 5.7 percent in the first three months of 2009.”

“Today, by contrast, home prices have stabilized, though unevenly by region; the economy is growing again, albeit at an anemic 2.4 percent in the second quarter; stocks are up more than 60 percent; joblessness remains at a painfully high 9.5 percent.”


The goal today, thanks to Democrats, is to keep the economy moving and increase employment, not to save the country from economic ruin because they already did that.

There is no way Republicans should get the keys to the car back, and we do not need to go back to the failed Bush policies.

10 comments:

carraig said...

Just a question - didn't Bush go ahead and authorize TARP funds for GM etc in November/December 2008 to keep them running ? Wasn't that the deal he made with the Senate Repubs anyway ?

Wasn't Congress held by the Democrats from 2007 onwards ? So they would have been in charge of both houses from that point onward, particularly through the timeframe in 2008 ? Hmmmm.

And isn't it also true that the Democrats held a small majority in the Senate when the first tax cuts passed in 2001 - 62-38 with about 15 democratic senators voting for them and against their own leader?
Same applies to Medicare Part D, which while it faced some opposition in the house from republicans was never going to not pass- Senate was a lock. And the 2003 tax cuts passed under reconciliation couldn't have done so without 2 or 3 Dem senators tie-ing the vote.......

In the same way that I'd never blame Granholm for Michigan's economy, only for her horrendous management of the state government,
a point you've frequently made, don't you think you're just a tad hypocritical to blame the recession on Bush ? After all, every 20 years for the past 200 or so years, there's been some sort of major bust.

The Democrats on the other hand, completely own the health care bill and almost all of the $800 billion Stimulus package that still doesn't seem to have done much. We'll know for sure on that in another year, but as far as we can tell, it doesn't seem to have helped much.

The Bush designed and Republican passed TARP bill on the other hand, seems to have done it's job.

Just saying......

Communications guru said...

The AP article on the Democrats averting a depression really says it all; don’t you think? But you are correct, Bush did “go ahead and authorize TARP funds for GM,” and in April 2009 GM is allowed to borrow another $2 billion in government loans; all of this over the objections of many Republicans. I wonder whose polices contributed to the economic climate that led to the downturn, and what President declined to even meet with auto executives for years?

Yes, unlike Republicans who only vote like the Senate and House leaders tells them, Democrats are more independent and actually vote for what they think is right, In the case of “The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003,” only two Senate Democrats voted for them. I know, weird they actually allowed an up or down vote instead of doing what the Republicans do and filibuster everything. “The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001” actually included some middle class tax cuts. And, only 12 voted incorrectly.

Medicare Part D was not a bad thing if they simply allowed the federal government to actually buy the drugs in bulk like the VA instead of the gift it tuned out to be to drug companies.

Here’s the big difference between the federal government and state government. State government cannot affect the things that really affect the economy, like monetary policy, trade policy and deficit spending. As for this, “horrendous management of the state government” that is just spin.

I blame the Bush recession on Bush because it is his fault. The Bush recession went beyond a typical downturn. It was the worst recession since the Great Depression, and almost tuned into a depression.

I’m glad the “Democrats on the other hand, completely own the health care bill and almost all of the $800 billion Stimulus package” because it got us out of the Bush recession despite attempts at sabotage and obstruction by the Republicans.

As for it not helping much, let me quote the article again: “when Obama was campaigning for president in 2008, the country was mired in the worst economic downturn since the 1930s.A crisis with subprime mortgages created panic dominos in the real estate, insurance, banking and auto industries, and credit markets virtually froze around the globe. Home values slid by $3.3 trillion in the last three months of 2008, Zillow Real Estate Reports said. The iconic Dow Jones industrial average plummeted from a high of 14,164 on Oct. 9, 2007, to a 12-year low of 6,547 on March 9, 2009. An average of 620,000 Americans lost their jobs every month from October 2008 to May 2009, and unemployment spiked from 5 percent in January 2008 to 10.1 percent in October 2009. The U.S. economy, as measured by gross domestic product, contracted by an annual rate of 6.3 percent in the last quarter of 2008 and 5.7 percent in the first three months of 2009.”

“Today, by contrast, home prices have stabilized, though unevenly by region; the economy is growing again, albeit at an anemic 2.4 percent in the second quarter; stocks are up more than 60 percent; joblessness remains at a painfully high 9.5 percent.”

Not Anonymous said...

There is so much BS between this post and the last it's hard to know where to begin. Nobody is trying to repeal the 14th amendment. The only thing asked for so far is that the portion where births here make the baby Americans should be reviewed and possibly clarified.

As for the recession, you're oversimplifying this at best. But it's basically you revising history. In 2005, Bush warned that if the subprime lending policies were not changed and ended, we'd be in for an economic disaster. It happened.

There is no proof that there would have been a depression. However, while you're trying to credit or blame Bush for the bailouts in the fall of 2008, you're not mentioning that both McCain and Obama went in for the meeting and the three of them decided. Bush thought they should be included in the decision making because one of them would be president within four months. So blaming that on Bush entirely is not remotely honest.

As for the Republicans filibustering. This too is a lie. The Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress from when Specter made himself officially a Democrat, AFTER he had already voted for the Obama plan. The socialist Democrats then controlled the Senate with the 60 votes needed to get anything passed that they wanted. Republicans could not stop anything. It was impossible for them to filibuster with only forty votes.

You might want to relook at home prices as well as foreclosures. Foreclosures are up in the markets, not just subprime. There is a double dip recession coming and possibly a depression after the first of the year if the tax cuts aren't made permanent or at least extended. I expect the socialist Democrats will pass alot of strange stuff in the lame duck session before they give up the majority in January.

By the way, the recession started in December of 2007. The Socialist Democrats took over the majority of the House and Senate in January 2007. But of course you'll likely call that a coincidence.

Not Anonymous said...

By the way, the idea that Republicans are trying to end Social Security for the elderly is another lie. Social Security should die, but it should die a gradual death. Take care of those on the system now, but phase it out and allow people to choose their own investments, be they CD's, Savings accounts, mutual funds, annuities, stocks, bonds or a combination of all.

Part of the problem with Social Security, other than the fact that the politicians have borrowed money from it and never repaid it, is that too many use Social Security as their own means of income. Social Security was meant as a supplement to what people save on their own. It was not meant to be their sole source of income in their later years. Another part of the problem is that Social Security only earns 1% return on the investment where other investments average much higher over the years. That includes the amounts lost for six to eight months following the recession and near meltdown in Sept 2008.

Of course now, social security is paying more out than it's collecting. Only seven years sooner than predicted three short years ago.

Did you get your social security statement yet? Look on the front page, the right hand side. They say right on there when Social security is expected to be exhausted. It's earlier than stated in past years and it will change in the coming years to earlier dates as well.

On top of all of that, pensions aren't funded properly throughout the country, mostly in government pensions.

The moral of the story? Never give money to socialist Democrats to give back to you in later years. You'll not see the return for your dollar. I'll bet you're one of those that is depending solely on social security for your retirement.

Communications guru said...

Ah, anonymous coward has crawled out from under his rock. “Nobody is trying to repeal the 14th amendment?” I guess they don’t have TV or newspaper under that rock. Try John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Boehner. Granted it’s a waste of time and will go nowhere. Maybe it’s them just playing to the crazy extremists that control the Republican party.

Like I said in the post, “There is no way that can be known for sure, but Economists Alan Blinder of Princeton and Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics say Democrats diverted a depression.” Of course a bush apologist like you would take the opposite view of economists.

I’m not “trying to credit or blame Bush for the bailouts in the fall of 2008” at all. That’s one of the few things he did right, but he brought us to that point.

The fact is the Republicans have used the filibuster more than anytime in history since Obama was elected.

Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.

I know Republicans are praying for a double dip recession, and that’s why they have blocked and stalled every single move to bring us out of the near depression Bush created. The good news is the economy is growing again.

Ah, we’re back to this game when the Bush recession started after you ignored the evidence for months and months. Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

Republican Michigander said...

The economy is growing? Bullshit. Jobless recoveries aren't real recoveries.

Communications guru said...

That is correct, the economy is growing. If you want to dispute that, give it your best shot.

Not Anonymous said...

Still with the petty little name calling? What are you? 12 years old? Oh well. If it makes you feel more like a man to whine about not knowing my real name, then I'll not expect anything but juvenile name calling from you to continue.

The economic growth figures will soon be reduced backwards and it's likely that this quarter will be flat at best.

I think there will be at least 70 seats change from socialist Democrat to Republican in November.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, anonymous coward, but Republicans are trying to end Social Security for the elderly. You need to check out teabagger Sharon Angle’s platform, even though she is now trying to hide that fact. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the senior GOP member of the House Budget Committee, has introduced a bill to revise Bush’s privatization scheme that died in 2005. Good thing he is in the minority.

You are correct; many people do use Social Security as their own means of income, and that is what it was intended for. So, in your world those elderly people should just die? That sounds a lot like the Republican health care plan. Wow, after the financial meltdown
you’re actually rolling out the debunked Bush talking points from 2005.

Seven years? Another false talking point. The Social Security trustees just released their annual report on Thursday, and it’s estimated that the Social Security trust fund will remain solvent until 2037. We need to reform the system, but that can be done.

You have already tried that “Did you get your social security statement yet,” and I already
debunked it. It says almost the same thing the trustees report said, “...by 2037 the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only 76 percent of scheduled benefits.” Not only that, it’s not where you claim it is. I suggest you look yourself instead of floating that old talking point.

Once again, anonymous coward,there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear.

You would be wrong again,anonymous coward, I’m retired military, so I’m already collecting a pension.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

Communications guru said...

“Petty little name calling?” That’s you, not me. I’m stating a fact and calling you by your screen name, and you are simply an anonymous coward, who throws out personal smears while hiding behind a false name. That makes you an anonymous coward.

You keep praying, anonymous coward, that “economic growth figures will soon be reduced backwards and it's likely that this quarter will be flat at best.?” That is, after all, the GOP campaign strategy: say no to every solution while offering none of their own and pray the country goes back into the Bush recession. What’s it like to root against your
own country, anonymous coward?

Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. Like I have said many, many times, the party in the White House almost always loses seats in the mid-term, and so will
the Democrats in November. The good news is that we will retain control of the House and Senate.

Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”