Paul Ryan earned his 3 million dollars through HARD WORK!!!

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

It's hard to take Ryan's economic policies seriously when he requested millions of dollars in earmarks and government spending literally saved his hometown from economic collapse(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all).

(4th paragraph from the bottom, completely ignores question that undermines his whole economic philosophy.)

As an elected official, if you aren't taking advantage of every option available to improve life for your constituents, regardless of ideology, you have failed. This is where Obama has failed miserably.

Obama has failed miserably at trying improving the life of his constituents? The Republican's self admitted Number 1 goal of the last 2 years was to ensure that Obama is a one-term president. Republicans have put partisan politics first and Americans a distant second.

In poor economic times, the only way to improve lives is to improve the economy. There are proven ways that have worked in the past, but they involve tax incentives for businesses and individuals, and his ideology won't permit him to do it. Tax increases come after the tax base (jobs) has expanded.

Seems like he gave general motors (the biggest business in the country) something even better than tax incentives.

He has actually hurt GM by not allowing them to go through a regular reorganization. We (taxpayers) are also 25 billion in the red holding shitty GM stock. The only ones that came out ahead on that deal is the UAW.

link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/15/auto-bailout-price-tag-rises-to-25-billion-how-high-will-it-go/

lol's

Meanwhile, says McAlinden, it’s worth putting the cost of the bailout in context. The $25.1 billion Treasury may lose has to be weighed against the cost of not bailing out GM and Chrysler in the first place. A study in 2010 by the Center for Automotive Research found that the auto rescue likely saved 1.14 million jobs and saved the government $28.6 billion in lost tax revenue. And those estimates, McAlinden said, are likely conservative.

If that’s true, it means that the cost of the auto bailout, in taxpayer terms, still isn’t quite as high as the cost of not bailing out Detroit would have been.

Hypothetically

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

[michigancat]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

[michigancat]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

Actually, there is evidence is that doing nothing (your hypothetical) would have caused a loss 1.14 million jobs (quoted in the article you posted). I thought this was about benefiting constituents? Is stock price the best way to determine whether or not constituents benefit? The article you posted didn't mention what the stock price would be if nothing had been done.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

Actually, there is evidence is that doing nothing (your hypothetical) would have caused a loss 1.14 million jobs (quoted in the article you posted). I thought this was about benefiting constituents? Is stock price the best way to determine whether or not constituents benefit? The article you posted didn't mention what the stock price would be if nothing had been done.

"Likely saved 1.14 million jobs" is not evidence.  Had they been able to renegotiate with the unions, they likely would have hired more than that. Good for GM, the constituents, and tax revenue.

[Dugout DickStone]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

Actually, there is evidence is that doing nothing (your hypothetical) would have caused a loss 1.14 million jobs (quoted in the article you posted). I thought this was about benefiting constituents? Is stock price the best way to determine whether or not constituents benefit? The article you posted didn't mention what the stock price would be if nothing had been done.

I think his point is the "constituents" wouldn't have spend $25billion for worthless stock.

[michigancat]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

Actually, there is evidence is that doing nothing (your hypothetical) would have caused a loss 1.14 million jobs (quoted in the article you posted). I thought this was about benefiting constituents? Is stock price the best way to determine whether or not constituents benefit? The article you posted didn't mention what the stock price would be if nothing had been done.

"Likely saved 1.14 million jobs" is not evidence.  Had they been able to renegotiate with the unions, they likely would have hired more than that. Good for GM, the constituents, and tax revenue.

That quote was from an economist with a Phd who obtained those numbers from a study he conducted. Where did you get your numbers? (Note, feel free to call it something other than evidence - we can call it "support for your hypothetical" if you'd like).

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

My hypothetical says GM would have rehired all of those people back, many at a lower rate, 401k's, and HMO insurance and be better able to compete. Now they're right back where they were before the bailout with their stock tanking.

Yeah, but you have zero evidence that supports that. Even if you did, it is debatable that Obama's constituents as a whole would have been better off.

There is zero evidence of any hypothetical outcome once the deal was done. But, the $25 billion is real. Who knows, maybe in 10-20 years the stock will be up to $50 and we break even.

Actually, there is evidence is that doing nothing (your hypothetical) would have caused a loss 1.14 million jobs (quoted in the article you posted). I thought this was about benefiting constituents? Is stock price the best way to determine whether or not constituents benefit? The article you posted didn't mention what the stock price would be if nothing had been done.

"Likely saved 1.14 million jobs" is not evidence.  Had they been able to renegotiate with the unions, they likely would have hired more than that. Good for GM, the constituents, and tax revenue.

That quote was from an economist with a Phd who obtained those numbers from a study he conducted. Where did you get your numbers? (Note, feel free to call it something other than evidence - we can call it "support for your hypothetical" if you'd like).

Studies are just that, studies. There are economists with PHDs that said we would have an unemployment rate below 7% right now if we just spent $900,000,000,000 on government pet projects and it didn't work. There are more unemployed now than in 2009. They often make assumptions based on what the desired outcome requires.

[420seriouscat69]

bookcat and fsd need their own forum that is somehow worse than the DK Dome.

I tossed out the idea of a sub-pit not long ago but Saul's too busy working on the secret boards that y-l_a isn't allowed on.

I know about the secret mods board, guess what? I WANT IN!!!