ShcShc11 0 #1 November 4, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/10/28/exp-farees-take.cnn Short video, but summarizes well. Whoever presides next will essentially reap the awards of a better conditioned-economy. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/10/26/exp-ken-rogoff-on-correcting-romney.cnn a 1 min video from Harvard University's Kenneth Rogoff. Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #2 November 4, 2012 Setting up Obama. If he wins and economy gets better its because of him. If Romney wins and it gets better it was because of Obama not romney. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #3 November 4, 2012 Nonsense. People (rational ones at least) have been saying this for some time. Either way, it's going to get better. And either way both parties will try and take credit for it....until policies they allow cause the next crash (be that R or D). Then it'll be everyone else's fault. Tis the nature of politics (sadly). IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 November 4, 2012 A Couple of months ago you were arguing that we needed more. Now you're saying it was enough. This is a frequent problem with lots of people. First it's didn't do enough. Then it's need more. Then things are better and it's "see how well it worked?" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #5 November 4, 2012 Quote Setting up Obama. If he wins and economy gets better its because of him. If Romney wins and it gets better it was because of Obama not romney. Since it was GOP policies of deregulation driven by greed that initiated the mess, that would be a fair conclusion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #6 November 4, 2012 THat was part of it, John. Democrat policies of requiring loans to credit risks was another. As was the utopian big-government love of a massive economic growth fueling record revenues in which government policies (federal, state and ESPECIALLY local) meant wanting to get all the bubble they could. LEst we forget the bubble of the 1990's that left Dubya with a mess to clean up. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #7 November 5, 2012 Quote A Couple of months ago you were arguing that we needed more. Now you're saying it was enough. This is a frequent problem with lots of people. First it's didn't do enough. Then it's need more. Then things are better and it's "see how well it worked?" It wasn't enough. ...it was BY FAR not enough. Trying to plug a 3 trillion $ GDP gap with a 400B$ stimulus (remember most of it was inefficient tax cuts and "Federal to State Transfers") is INSUFFICIENT. We were too scared by the boogeyman called "debt cliff" (and we still are even if investors are willing to give money for U.S to borrow FOR FREE). But that doesn't mean we didn't do better than Europe and/or other financial institution-related recessions/depression. Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #8 November 5, 2012 Quote THat was part of it, John. Democrat policies of requiring loans to credit risks was another. As was the utopian big-government love of a massive economic growth fueling record revenues in which government policies (federal, state and ESPECIALLY local) meant wanting to get all the bubble they could. LEst we forget the bubble of the 1990's that left Dubya with a mess to clean up. As shown in my other topics, previous GOPs including Reagan were more Government expansionary than Obama. I know I know. Your reaction will be: "That can't be true!". But the numbers are there. Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
