Questions for 2stupid4words

[Guest Guest]

In today's topic du jour, 2stupid4words complains about the mounting federal debt. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...st&p=105585

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the additional debt was incurred to save the economy from collapse, a point 2stupid4words never addresses. So here are some questions.

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

In answering these questions, you are expected to support your answers with facts and proper citation, like any good high school or college student should do.

[Guest 2smart4u]

In today's topic du jour, 2stupid4words complains about the mounting federal debt. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...st&p=105585

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the additional debt was incurred to save the economy from collapse, a point 2stupid4words never addresses. So here are some questions.

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

In answering these questions, you are expected to support your answers with facts and proper citation, like any good high school or college student should do.

Wow, I feel like I'm back in college, do I get graded on this? Mr. Guest, I don't have the time or the inclination and my crystal ball's been acting up lately.

So why don't you answer them and I'll critique you.

[Guest Guest]

Wow, I feel like I'm back in college, do I get graded on this? Mr. Guest, I don't have the time or the inclination and my crystal ball's been acting up lately.

So why don't you answer them and I'll critique you.

Score = 0

Grade = F

Comment: I have answered them. I have explained to you repeatedly that the economy was on the brink of collapse. Had that happened, each of those factors would have been adversely affected. By refusing to address these points, you prove what everyone already knows, which is that you refuse to consider anything beyond the talking points you're fed and that you've gotten so wrapped up in your ideology that you've lost touch with reality and any sense of concern for the well-being of this country or its people. And unlike you, I'm not making that up.

[Guest Guest]

Wow, I feel like I'm back in college, do I get graded on this? Mr. Guest, I don't have the time or the inclination and my crystal ball's been acting up lately.

So why don't you answer them and I'll critique you.

Do you really think anyone doesn't see through that non-answer? Obviously you don't have an answer for any of it.

Let's reason through it together. The point is that the national debt is like a family's debt: you have to ask why the debt was incurred. It matters whether the economy would have collapsed, how high the unemployment rate would be, whether consumers would be buying anything, whether banks would be lending, whether people would be making enough money to pay taxes, whether people's investments in stocks and other things would have been wiped out, whether their other assets would be worth anything, whether the world economy would have been thrown into turmoil and whether we would be in a second Great Depression without the spending. Several of our biggest economic players were on the verge of collapse. Had they failed, they would have taken the entire economy down with them. You can't ignore that if you're going to make any sense out of this. Yet you ignore it. OK, so you don't make any sense. But that's your choice not to make sense and to ignore all these other points.

Consider just one item. If consumers weren't buying, then manufacturers would stop producing and banks would stop lending. Incomes would decline, people would lose their jobs and in essence the American economy would collapse; and if the American economy collapsed, the world's economy would be in chaos. We are that big on the world stage. All the pieces interrelate. So you can't intelligently talk only about the debt. That's like one spouse screaming at the other, "We're up to our eyes in debt" after they just took out a loan to save the family business. You have to ask what would have happened if they hadn't done it. The fact that you refuse to do that shows either that you have no idea what you're talking about or that you already know you're wrong. One thing is for sure: you will attack Democrats no matter what they do. That's your choice but if you expect to persuade anyone, you have to be reasonable. You are not being reasonable.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Do you really think anyone doesn't see through that non-answer? Obviously you don't have an answer for any of it.

Let's reason through it together. The point is that the national debt is like a family's debt: you have to ask why the debt was incurred. It matters whether the economy would have collapsed, how high the unemployment rate would be, whether consumers would be buying anything, whether banks would be lending, whether people would be making enough money to pay taxes, whether people's investments in stocks and other things would have been wiped out, whether their other assets would be worth anything, whether the world economy would have been thrown into turmoil and whether we would be in a second Great Depression without the spending. Several of our biggest economic players were on the verge of collapse. Had they failed, they would have taken the entire economy down with them. You can't ignore that if you're going to make any sense out of this. Yet you ignore it. OK, so you don't make any sense. But that's your choice not to make sense and to ignore all these other points.

Consider just one item. If consumers weren't buying, then manufacturers would stop producing and banks would stop lending. Incomes would decline, people would lose their jobs and in essence the American economy would collapse; and if the American economy collapsed, the world's economy would be in chaos. We are that big on the world stage. All the pieces interrelate. So you can't intelligently talk only about the debt. That's like one spouse screaming at the other, "We're up to our eyes in debt" after they just took out a loan to save the family business. You have to ask what would have happened if they hadn't done it. The fact that you refuse to do that shows either that you have no idea what you're talking about or that you already know you're wrong. One thing is for sure: you will attack Democrats no matter what they do. That's your choice but if you expect to persuade anyone, you have to be reasonable. You are not being reasonable.

All of your long winded bloviating is nothing more than conjecture, it's your guess or opinion on something you couldn't possibly know about.

We know you stand by Comrade zerO no matter what he does; trying to bribe Sestak, or doesn't do; skipping out on Memorial Day at Arlington or a no-show in the Gulf, so I won't bother you with reality.

How's that "most open and above-board administration" working out for you Loonys?

[Guest Guest]

All of your long winded bloviating is nothing more than conjecture, it's your guess or opinion on something you couldn't possibly know about.

We know you stand by Comrade zerO no matter what he does; trying to bribe Sestak, or doesn't do; skipping out on Memorial Day at Arlington or a no-show in the Gulf, so I won't bother you with reality.

How's that "most open and above-board administration" working out for you Loonys?

So by that standard, you cannot intelligently say that the debt will continue to rise, or what will be the effects if it does, and you cannot intelligently make any of the predictions you make. You are guilty of a rank double-standard, for the obvious reason that you don't think past your right-wing talking point du jour. This is the very essence of propaganda as practiced by the likes of Adolf Hitler, and you are guilty of it. It is the exact opposite of patriotism and love of country. It is dishonest.

You refuse to put the situation in context. All the factors cited in Post 1 are essential to the economy. You cannot just talk about one and expect to make any sense.

[Guest Guest]

All of your long winded bloviating is nothing more than conjecture, it's your guess or opinion on something you couldn't possibly know about.

We know you stand by Comrade zerO no matter what he does; trying to bribe Sestak, or doesn't do; skipping out on Memorial Day at Arlington or a no-show in the Gulf, so I won't bother you with reality.

How's that "most open and above-board administration" working out for you Loonys?

You're funny. Junior had the car headed straight for the cliff at 100 miles an hour and you think it's just conjecture that it was going to crash if someone didn't do something.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, sending the economy into freefall. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bull...etin_080915.htm Your favorite newspaper, the right-wing Wall Street Journal, called it a "Category 5 test of our financial levees" and warned of a "systematic crisis." They wrote that "Treasury will have to take more aggressive steps to protect the banking system -- including, perhaps, another Resolution Trust Corp. that can acquire real-estate and mortgage assets when there are no other buyers, provide some floor under prices, and liquidate or sell them in more orderly fashion." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221444848...ew_and_outlooks The stock market quickly took a nosedive, as everyone's investments lost a significant part of their value. http://www.money-zine.com/Investing/Stocks...-Crash-of-2008/

People who actually know something about these things were worried about a collapse of the financial markets.

http://blog.rebeltraders.net/2008/09/15/st...ewlett-packard/

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cri...07%E2%80%932010

We know enough to know that the economy was in deep trouble and in danger of collapse. You can't just stand around and do nothing. The government had to act, and at the time, Republicans and Democrats agreed on that.

If you smoke, you may not get lung cancer. If you drink and drive, you may not get into a crash. If you have unprotected sex, you might not get a disease or cause a pregnancy. But a responsible person does not take that chance.

And even if you don't think an economic collapse was a certainty, you still have to consider what was likely to happen if Lehman and AIG and many other big companies hadn't been given assistance. You refuse to consider it; that is not reasonable.

So even if you disagree with President Obama that TARP I and II were necessary, you still have to consider why it was done if you're going to be reasonable. You refuse to do that, using instead the classic dodge when you're asked a series of questions you can't answer. Hey, why should facts get in the way of propaganda, right?

Tell you what: If you have a heart attack, don't go for any medical care. It's just conjecture that you might die.

By the way, the word "bloviating" does not mean "asking a lot of questions you can't answer."

[Guest Guest]

All of your long winded bloviating is nothing more than conjecture, it's your guess or opinion on something you couldn't possibly know about.

Then how do you know any of your opinions are correct, Mr. President Giuliani? You just admitted that you lost the argument by evading it, and you don't even realize it.

We know you stand by Comrade zerO no matter what he does; trying to bribe Sestak, or doesn't do; skipping out on Memorial Day at Arlington or a no-show in the Gulf, so I won't bother you with reality.

Where you get this "we" stuff? You seem to think that everyone thinks like you do. Fortunately, that's not true. There are plenty of people, including some on this forum, who actually consider the evidence and think about things before forming their opinions. Not being familiar with that concept, you don't understand it, so the only way you can explain things you don't understand is by assuming the people asking the questions are as unreasoning as you are.

How's that "most open and above-board administration" working out for you Loonys?

Better than that drilly-spilly thing is working out for you and your right-wing nutcake friends. Drilly-spilly just caused one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. Our guy is President, our party is in charge of Congress, and while few in Washington are popular, Obama has more support than anyone else. By the way, those "Loonys" you're referring to are the American people, who elected President Obama and would do so again if there was an election tomorrow.

The Republicans drove the economy into the ditch and now they want the keys back. The American people are smarter than that - I hope.

[Guest Guest]

All of your long winded bloviating is nothing more than conjecture, it's your guess or opinion on something you couldn't possibly know about.

We know you stand by Comrade zerO no matter what he does; trying to bribe Sestak, or doesn't do; skipping out on Memorial Day at Arlington or a no-show in the Gulf, so I won't bother you with reality.

How's that "most open and above-board administration" working out for you Loonys?

So apparently you think your expertise is in politics, not economics, since you've predicted the election of President Giuliani and Mayor Leadbeater. OK, let's assume you're a political expert.

If the President did nothing while the economy was in freefall in late 2008 and into 2009, what do you think would have happened?

And if you don't think he should have done nothing, then what should he have done?

Make sure you give us the benefit of your extensive expertise by explaining the basis for your answers.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So apparently you think your expertise is in politics, not economics, since you've predicted the election of President Giuliani and Mayor Leadbeater. OK, let's assume you're a political expert.

If the President did nothing while the economy was in freefall in late 2008 and into 2009, what do you think would have happened?

And if you don't think he should have done nothing, then what should he have done?

Make sure you give us the benefit of your extensive expertise by explaining the basis for your answers.

My crystal ball is still acting up but here's what I DO know: Comrade zerO tried to interfere in the election process by attempting to bribe Sestak to drop out of the race against Specter. ZerO's skipping out on the Arlington ceremony in favor of hangin' with his bros' in Chicago ( he'll make a quick visit to Lincoln's gravesite for show). He's been an absolute failure on this gulf disaster. The federal government has done nothing to date, leaving it all up to BP, although zerO claims the government's in charge.

[Guest Guest]

My crystal ball is still acting up but here's what I DO know: Comrade zerO tried to interfere in the election process by attempting to bribe Sestak to drop out of the race against Specter. ZerO's skipping out on the Arlington ceremony in favor of hangin' with his bros' in Chicago ( he'll make a quick visit to Lincoln's gravesite for show). He's been an absolute failure on this gulf disaster. The federal government has done nothing to date, leaving it all up to BP, although zerO claims the government's in charge.

Even if any of that was true, which it isn't, 2stupid4words continues to demonstrate his ignorance and stupidity by ignoring all points relevant to the topic at hand:

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

You can't understand the additional debt without understanding these issues, all of which 2stupid4words refuses to consider. He is a truly stupid, ignorant and stubborn individual.

[Guest Guest]

My crystal ball is still acting up but here's what I DO know: Comrade zerO tried to interfere in the election process by attempting to bribe Sestak to drop out of the race against Specter. ZerO's skipping out on the Arlington ceremony in favor of hangin' with his bros' in Chicago ( he'll make a quick visit to Lincoln's gravesite for show). He's been an absolute failure on this gulf disaster. The federal government has done nothing to date, leaving it all up to BP, although zerO claims the government's in charge.

Did you see him standing in the rain in front of Lincoln's tomb ? Can you say "karma"?

[Guest ko]

2Stupid,

Shouldn't the BP crisis be left up to the "Drill Baby, Drill!" crowd? I mean, can't we just plug that hole with Rush Limbaugh's fat, stupid ass or something? Seriously, you're knocking Obama for his slow response to a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe he just thought it was standard procedure for the president to say "F**K Louisiana."

No, no. Obviously I'm joking. Unlike you, my compassion for the sea life, industry and people of Louisiana isn't phony. I think Obama dragged his feet big-time responding to this crisis. Like James Carville put it, the response would have been different (faster) if this happened off the shores of New England.

So why do you care, though? I mean, you busted Obama's balls because he wants to create Green Jobs. You give him trouble because he wants to tighten the governments grip on companies like BP that pollute our environment free-of-charge. Your party twisted Obama's arm until he conceded that maybe off-shore drilling was necessary. However, when the divine wisdom of the Republican party is exposed as utter stupidity, you guys still claim you're right and then BLAME THE OTHER GUY. It's unbelievable.

While drilling for oil is the bane of all of us in the United States, it is the baby of the Republican party. You were the ones who said "drill"; you were the ones who tried to deny the negative effects oil has on the environment (and economy really); you were the one's who said "no" to Cap and Trade. So what do you want from us? At least we're over here trying to stop things like this before they start. We're trying to reduce the dependence on a drug that causes problems for us from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf to the Gulf station down the block (you know, the station that could blow up at the misdirected flick of a cigarette). What are you doing? Lauding its many harmful results? Still? The new bullshit point is that Cap and Trade wouldn't have stopped this crisis. CLEARLY. But is it not a step in the right direction? Could Cap and Trade prevent an event like this from happening in another 20 years? If it spurns more regulation, then yes. If it reduces are craving for oil (foreign and domestic), yes. If something like Cap and Trade was thought up in 1989 after Exxon Valdez, just think of where we'd be now.

I'm not saying "stop drilling now." But god, let's F**KING change the attitude we have towards this stuff. Let's work on something better. And let's stop dragging are feet on cleaner, more efficient energy.

[Guest Guest]

Even if any of that was true, which it isn't, 2stupid4words continues to demonstrate his ignorance and stupidity by ignoring all points relevant to the topic at hand:

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

You can't understand the additional debt without understanding these issues, all of which 2stupid4words refuses to consider. He is a truly stupid, ignorant and stubborn individual.

What's your point ? You're posing abstract questions that have no answers. DUH !

[Guest Guest]

What's your point ? You're posing abstract questions that have no answers. DUH !

The "DUH" at the end says it all. Those questions are not abstract. They are the very core of what every economist and every responsible national leader must consider in addressing these issues - the effect on employment, the markets, lending and all the other indicators of economic health or illness. They are the reason for the policy choices that have caused our debt to rise further.

You can't analyze the policies intelligently if you don't understand why they were adopted, and you can't understand the reasons if you refuse to consider them.

The questions posed may not permit exact answers down to the last dollar or hundredth of a percentage point but no one responsible for national policy can stand around picking his nose and watch the economy go down. Even Junior wasn't that stupid.

So I'll make the connection for you again. It's not difficult to understand but you have to be willing to think about more than one thing. A person of average intelligence can do it; you just have to think a little. In September 2008, when major companies started to fail and the stock market tanked, the economy was in real danger of collapse, soon. Failure of some of our biggest companies would have sent the stock market further into a nosedove, depleting people's assets. This would have meant people had less money to spend, so demand would have fallen further. With a fall in demand, manufacturers have little choice but to stop producing. If this continues long enough, the economy would go into a deflationary spiral to the bottom. That is what economists fear as a worst-case scenario, and the consensus was that we were close to it. It's not guesswork. It's how our economy works.

That is why the federal government stepped in with TARP. Complaining about the money we spent, while refusing to consider the reasons, is childish and frankly, stupid.

[Guest 2smart4u]

The "DUH" at the end says it all. Those questions are not abstract. They are the very core of what every economist and every responsible national leader must consider in addressing these issues - the effect on employment, the markets, lending and all the other indicators of economic health or illness. They are the reason for the policy choices that have caused our debt to rise further.

You can't analyze the policies intelligently if you don't understand why they were adopted, and you can't understand the reasons if you refuse to consider them.

The questions posed may not permit exact answers down to the last dollar or hundredth of a percentage point but no one responsible for national policy can stand around picking his nose and watch the economy go down. Even Junior wasn't that stupid.

So I'll make the connection for you again. It's not difficult to understand but you have to be willing to think about more than one thing. A person of average intelligence can do it; you just have to think a little. In September 2008, when major companies started to fail and the stock market tanked, the economy was in real danger of collapse, soon. Failure of some of our biggest companies would have sent the stock market further into a nosedove, depleting people's assets. This would have meant people had less money to spend, so demand would have fallen further. With a fall in demand, manufacturers have little choice but to stop producing. If this continues long enough, the economy would go into a deflationary spiral to the bottom. That is what economists fear as a worst-case scenario, and the consensus was that we were close to it. It's not guesswork. It's how our economy works.

That is why the federal government stepped in with TARP. Complaining about the money we spent, while refusing to consider the reasons, is childish and frankly, stupid.

Nonsense. TARP and all the other bailouts have been abject failures when considering gains vs expenditures, but the dems don't talk about that. A better

approach would have been Reaganomics, cutting corporate & capital gains taxes to stimulate the economy.

Of course Obama, being a novice community organizer from Chi-town couldn't be expected to understand anything beyond spend, spend, spend.

BTW, having just passed the 13 trillion mark of our national debt, we're well on our way to 14 trillion, we've already added another 35 billion in the last week.

Even Maureen Dowd, a former staunch supporter of Obama is now admitting Obama is becoming a major disappointment.

[Guest Guest]

Nonsense. TARP and all the other bailouts have been abject failures when considering gains vs expenditures, but the dems don't talk about that. A better

approach would have been Reaganomics, cutting corporate & capital gains taxes to stimulate the economy.

Of course Obama, being a novice community organizer from Chi-town couldn't be expected to understand anything beyond spend, spend, spend.

BTW, having just passed the 13 trillion mark of our national debt, we're well on our way to 14 trillion, we've already added another 35 billion in the last week.

Even Maureen Dowd, a former staunch supporter of Obama is now admitting Obama is becoming a major disappointment.

When a leftist writer for the NY Slimes calls Obama a disappointment, his days are numbered.

[Guest Guest]

Nonsense. TARP and all the other bailouts have been abject failures when considering gains vs expenditures, but the dems don't talk about that. A better

approach would have been Reaganomics, cutting corporate & capital gains taxes to stimulate the economy.

Of course Obama, being a novice community organizer from Chi-town couldn't be expected to understand anything beyond spend, spend, spend.

BTW, having just passed the 13 trillion mark of our national debt, we're well on our way to 14 trillion, we've already added another 35 billion in the last week.

Even Maureen Dowd, a former staunch supporter of Obama is now admitting Obama is becoming a major disappointment.

But that's your answer to everything: stay the Republican course that caused the problem in the first place. "Cut taxes for corporations, give more money to the rich and everything will be fine." We did that, and it caused this disaster. We got government off the corporations' backs via deregulation and they went haywire, just as they always do. We gave the rich more money and they didn't boost the economy with it - they just got richer with it.

Morons like you drove the car into the ditch. You can't have the keys back.

And you still absolutely refuse to address any of the issues:

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

You can't address those issues by singing your tired old right-wing song yet again. We've heard it and we rejected it.

[Guest ko]

Nonsense. TARP and all the other bailouts have been abject failures when considering gains vs expenditures, but the dems don't talk about that. A better

approach would have been Reaganomics, cutting corporate & capital gains taxes to stimulate the economy.

Of course Obama, being a novice community organizer from Chi-town couldn't be expected to understand anything beyond spend, spend, spend.

BTW, having just passed the 13 trillion mark of our national debt, we're well on our way to 14 trillion, we've already added another 35 billion in the last week.

Even Maureen Dowd, a former staunch supporter of Obama is now admitting Obama is becoming a major disappointment.

Maureen Dowd is a staunch supporter of one thing: cynicism. Are you really going to tell me that "now" Maureen Dowd is admitting Obama is a major disappointment? Try January 2009. You're a F**KING idiot. Don't start telling me about NY Times columnists I read weekly, you F**KING moron who can't even pick up a F**KING newspaper.

[Guest Guest]

Nonsense. TARP and all the other bailouts have been abject failures when considering gains vs expenditures, but the dems don't talk about that. A better

approach would have been Reaganomics, cutting corporate & capital gains taxes to stimulate the economy.

Of course Obama, being a novice community organizer from Chi-town couldn't be expected to understand anything beyond spend, spend, spend.

BTW, having just passed the 13 trillion mark of our national debt, we're well on our way to 14 trillion, we've already added another 35 billion in the last week.

Even Maureen Dowd, a former staunch supporter of Obama is now admitting Obama is becoming a major disappointment.

TARP was not a failure. It was a success. The companies who received the aid survived and many of them have paid back the loan.

Now explain how corporate and capital gains taxes would work during an economic meltdown. How much are you going to cut? If you cut $1 trillion, then you're still increasing the debt by a trillion dollars. But unlike TARP, the tax cut isn't targeted, so companies are getting it even though they don't need it. Remember, the economy was near meltdown. Nobody was lending and nobody was investing. Are businesses suddenly going to start investing in that climate? No they aren't. What about the banks? How is it going to work for them, particularly the ones that were about to fail? Go ahead genius, explain how your all-purpose answer-for-everything works when the economy is melting down. (It doesn't.) Go ahead. Give us the benefit of your erudition, and don't neglect to be very specific.

[Guest Keith]

TARP was not a failure. It was a success. The companies who received the aid survived and many of them have paid back the loan.

Now explain how corporate and capital gains taxes would work during an economic meltdown. How much are you going to cut? If you cut $1 trillion, then you're still increasing the debt by a trillion dollars. But unlike TARP, the tax cut isn't targeted, so companies are getting it even though they don't need it. Remember, the economy was near meltdown. Nobody was lending and nobody was investing. Are businesses suddenly going to start investing in that climate? No they aren't. What about the banks? How is it going to work for them, particularly the ones that were about to fail? Go ahead genius, explain how your all-purpose answer-for-everything works when the economy is melting down. (It doesn't.) Go ahead. Give us the benefit of your erudition, and don't neglect to be very specific.

Exellent point ,but don't hold your breath expecting any kind of well thought out response from 2dumb. You kicked his ass.

[Guest 2smart4u]

TARP was not a failure. It was a success. The companies who received the aid survived and many of them have paid back the loan.

Now explain how corporate and capital gains taxes would work during an economic meltdown. How much are you going to cut? If you cut $1 trillion, then you're still increasing the debt by a trillion dollars. But unlike TARP, the tax cut isn't targeted, so companies are getting it even though they don't need it. Remember, the economy was near meltdown. Nobody was lending and nobody was investing. Are businesses suddenly going to start investing in that climate? No they aren't. What about the banks? How is it going to work for them, particularly the ones that were about to fail? Go ahead genius, explain how your all-purpose answer-for-everything works when the economy is melting down. (It doesn't.) Go ahead. Give us the benefit of your erudition, and don't neglect to be very specific.

Research Reaganomics, it resulted in a surge in the economy; spending, investments, hiring, all went up.

I know the Loonys would like to write that out of the history books because Reagan was Republican but spinning your nonsense won't change zerO's failures at improving the economy. All he's done is spent us into record shattering debt that may destroy America as we know it.

[Guest Former Resident]

But that's your answer to everything: stay the Republican course that caused the problem in the first place. "Cut taxes for corporations, give more money to the rich and everything will be fine." We did that, and it caused this disaster. We got government off the corporations' backs via deregulation and they went haywire, just as they always do. We gave the rich more money and they didn't boost the economy with it - they just got richer with it.

Morons like you drove the car into the ditch. You can't have the keys back.

And you still absolutely refuse to address any of the issues:

What condition would the economy be in today if the government hadn't rescued its biggest players? More specifically:

How many would be unemployed?

What would be the condition of consumer demand and consumer confidence?

Would anyone be lending money?

How would tax revenues have been affected?

How big would the debt be?

Where would the stock market be?

What would people's assets be worth?

What would be the condition of the world economy?

Would we be in a recovery, in a second Great Depression, or somewhere between?

What would be our prospects for future economic growth?

You can't address those issues by singing your tired old right-wing song yet again. We've heard it and we rejected it.

Your questions CANNOT be answered with anything other than "Maybe" or "Unknown"... There is no way of knowing what may have happened, just as there is no way of knowing what might happen in the future... we are still not out of the woods yet.

So, not being able to address your "issues" has nothing to do with a "tired old right-wing song"... They are impossible questions to answer logically in which to have any intelligent discussion about them.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Maureen Dowd is a staunch supporter of one thing: cynicism. Are you really going to tell me that "now" Maureen Dowd is admitting Obama is a major disappointment? Try January 2009. You're a F**KING idiot. Don't start telling me about NY Times columnists I read weekly, you F**KING moron who can't even pick up a F**KING newspaper.

You read WEEKLY? You should start reading DAILY if you want to stay abreast of zerO's failures. Reading the entertainment section on weekends isn't

cutting it for you.

[Guest 2smart4u]

2Stupid,

Shouldn't the BP crisis be left up to the "Drill Baby, Drill!" crowd? I mean, can't we just plug that hole with Rush Limbaugh's fat, stupid ass or something? Seriously, you're knocking Obama for his slow response to a crisis in the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe he just thought it was standard procedure for the president to say "F**K Louisiana."

No, no. Obviously I'm joking. Unlike you, my compassion for the sea life, industry and people of Louisiana isn't phony. I think Obama dragged his feet big-time responding to this crisis. Like James Carville put it, the response would have been different (faster) if this happened off the shores of New England.

So why do you care, though? I mean, you busted Obama's balls because he wants to create Green Jobs. You give him trouble because he wants to tighten the governments grip on companies like BP that pollute our environment free-of-charge. Your party twisted Obama's arm until he conceded that maybe off-shore drilling was necessary. However, when the divine wisdom of the Republican party is exposed as utter stupidity, you guys still claim you're right and then BLAME THE OTHER GUY. It's unbelievable.

While drilling for oil is the bane of all of us in the United States, it is the baby of the Republican party. You were the ones who said "drill"; you were the ones who tried to deny the negative effects oil has on the environment (and economy really); you were the one's who said "no" to Cap and Trade. So what do you want from us? At least we're over here trying to stop things like this before they start. We're trying to reduce the dependence on a drug that causes problems for us from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf to the Gulf station down the block (you know, the station that could blow up at the misdirected flick of a cigarette). What are you doing? Lauding its many harmful results? Still? The new bullshit point is that Cap and Trade wouldn't have stopped this crisis. CLEARLY. But is it not a step in the right direction? Could Cap and Trade prevent an event like this from happening in another 20 years? If it spurns more regulation, then yes. If it reduces are craving for oil (foreign and domestic), yes. If something like Cap and Trade was thought up in 1989 after Exxon Valdez, just think of where we'd be now.

I'm not saying "stop drilling now." But god, let's F**KING change the attitude we have towards this stuff. Let's work on something better. And let's stop dragging are feet on cleaner, more efficient energy.

Tell that to the Dems in Congress who have opposed building nuclear plants to replace oil consumption. You're right about one thing though, I do believe

zerO would say F--- Louisiana.