Originally Posted by jimmac
Who was in there when this all blossomed SDW?
Another Republican jackass. Just like the recent crop running for president. If we'd gotten say McCain/Palin the mind reels with how bad it would have been.
It's merely an academic point, because we'll never know. That said, you've provided no support (as usual) for your statement. What specific policies would have made things worse than they are now?
Probably they would have followed the party line
Yes, completely unlike the Democratic side....right? Right?
and there would have been several big corporations going under.
Demonstrate this. Also, several big corporations DID go under. We just spent tens of billions bailing them out before letting them go through bankruptcy, which is what she should have done to begin with.
This would have been followed by more jobs lost and a real depression ( not the relatively mild experience we've had ).
Relatively mild experience? Are you kidding? In Obama's own words, it was the "worst economy since the Great Depression." Now it's mild? Obama himself also said that the reason the economy is not strong now is that they "underestimated how bad it was." So, which is it? You can't have it both ways.
I know you won't believe this because you are a dyed in the wool Republican and can't see anything else but it's the way things would have gone. Perhaps they would have seen things not doing so well ( maybe even feeling threatened by the reaction from the public ) and tried to reverse course but by then it would have been too late.
I'm not a "dyed in the wool Republican." I am conservative on most issues, libertarian on others. I am registered as a Republican so I can vote in my state's closed primary. In fact, I was a registered independent for several years. Beyond that, you still have offered nothing but a "sorry, that's the way it would have gone" to support your position.
Originally Posted by jimmac
They claim to hate the bailouts. I think they would have been clueless. Just like Bush was cluless ( except at the last min. when he tried to do something ). I can just imagine McCain and Palin trying to fix things while also trying to follow what the party wanted them to do. At least Obama buffered things a bit.
More meaningless crap. "Buffered things?" Does that mean "on a mission to destroy the U.S. economy?
I know, I know the GOP tells us they could have had things all better in no time.
Of course they do. Both parties say that all the time. It's called politics.
A problem of this magnitude? Horseshit. Probably they would have let GM go under. That would have flooded the job market with thousands more workers unemployed. Remember it's not just the factory workers it's all those little people who sell GM parts. You can work out the rest for yourself. A real depression not this " Things aren't great but at least we dodged the bullet " situation.
You clearly have no understanding of the bankruptcy process. G.M. should have been allowed to go through bankruptcy. This does not mean tens of thousands of unemployed. This does not mean G.M. goes out of business. It means following the bankruptcy and restructuring process under Chapter 11. And what did we do instead? We gave them $50 BILLION dollars and THEN let them go bankrupt anyway! The government bought the company, and screwed all the secured bond holders
in favor of paying the UNSECURED bond holders (the union). Really, it's hard to imagine a more disastrous and immoral outcome. The UAW now owns G.M.--the very people that bankrupted the company to begin with.
The problem with Obama is he should have put healthcare on the back burner until the economy was addressed.
We agree there.
Focusing on it as he did wasted time and left him open for attack from the Republicans.
Of course it did, because he was WRONG.
He also should have ended those wars and brought the troops home as soon as possible. We can't be world policeman until we can afford it. And maybe nor should we.
Why? Because we were tired? We disagree.
That probably should be for the " World " to do not just us. I'm thinking he would have never spent the kind of money Paul Krugman says would have been necessary to avert almost an entire decade of recovery ( which is what we have now mirroring what happened post The Great Depression ) so he decided to focus on healthcare and wait for things to gradually come back in time ( which is also where we are now most economists say 2014 ). I know people like MJ and SDW won't agree with this and I don't care. So far everything Krugman has predicted has come to pass.
Krugman is one of the idiots out there arguing that the stimulus needed to be at least twice as large.
But given the Republican's track record I can't imagine things being this good had Obama lost.
"Things" are a disaster right now. What has Obama accomplished? He pushed through a trillion dollar takeover of healthcare that the American people oppose and that will kill private insurance within a few years. He failed to work out an agreement with the Iraqis to leave American security forces behind. He started a war in Libya. He's emboldened Iran. He's enraged Pakistan. He's spent money literally twice as fast as Bush did. He's trampled the rights of Catholics. We've amassed over $5 Trillion in debt in just three years. The deficit is 4 times higher than Bush's worse. Unemployment is close to 9% officially, and real unemployment is at least 11%. Two million fewer Americans are working today than they were when Obama was sworn in. He's ignored military leaders and made politically motivated troop level decisions in Afghanistan. Last year's budget proposal was defeated 97-0 in the Senate. Federal workers' pay is up, the private sector's is down. Gas is twice as much as it was when he took office.
Tell me how "good" things are.
Originally Posted by sammi jo
The wealth gap is partly a result of greed and crime, amongst many other (mostly negative) factors.
The government is not the tool to address greed and its glorification in US society, and the prevalence of sociopaths in corporate boardrooms... that's a matter of personal ethics, integrity and common decency - ie the art of being civilized.
However, the government can address white collar crime. Unfortunately, it doesn't.... apart from a few well publicized cases. The US has a government that is run by corporations and banks, where criminals within that system can run largely free without fear of prosecution, or at worst - a slap on the proverbial wrist. Where there's a will, there's a way, but in the case of corporate and bankster serial criminality, there is zero
will. Human nature is what it is....
Conservatives, the alleged champions of law and order, universally become mute, go into denial mode, and quickly change the subject when it comes down to addressing the crimes committed by the privileged..... or they even blow fuses and pretend it doesn't exist.
Do you honestly believe that the wealth gap is all about greed and law enforcement?