Women smarten up and see through obama, now pick Romney over Obama

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't we already try stimulus twice without the intended results.

Generally when people talk about the stimulus bill, they mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There was only one of those. I am of the opinion that the bill was too small -- I came to this opinion based on the opinions of respected economists -- and that too much of it was in the form of tax cuts (a third was tax cuts). So, if you take a program that is too small and devote one third of it to the least effective type of stimulus there is, it is not surprising that you don't get the expected results. Even so, it is fairly well established that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped add jobs to the economy and prevented things from being even worse than they were.

I understand that is is easy to critique, but do you have any positive suggestions? If you don't like stimulus, what is your suggestion for growing the economy? I would guess that your suggestion is for tax cuts and less government regulation. That gave us the Bush recession and a banking crisis. Do you have any better ideas?

My opinion is that we tried the liberal approach (stimulas w/ bush & obama, government expansion, more regulation) for the last 3-4 years and it hasn't worked so go back to the conservative idea of less taxes and less regulations. I personally was not happy with bailing out the banks or car companies, I would've rather let whatever fail fail. When failure occurs another purchaser can come around and buy the failed company at a properly lower value.

Check out BOA and their valuation they are basically JUNK and if they failed they might have been purchased at rate as low or maybe higher than their current valuation and by now would be growing rather than floundering. This holds true with all the too big too fail.

You believe this because you live in the DC region. If you lived anywhere else, you would understand that they were really hurting. We moved from NC and the DC area operates in a vacuum.

We never left the era of less taxes and we are still learning the lessons of less regulations. JP Morgan Chade was the last bank to not screw up and they just screwed up. So now that Jamie Dimon is hanging his head in shame the banking industry doesn't have a poster boy left.

Expecting stimulus of 700 billion to fix an economy of 1 trillion is bad math but the republicans would not support what the economists said was necessary. That's ignoring good advice.

On the other hand expecting tax cuts and deregulation to heal a budget gap created by tax cuts and a meltdown created by poor regulation is just a failure to learn from mistakes. Only a fool would expect th to have the opposite effect the next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't we already try stimulus twice without the intended results.

Generally when people talk about the stimulus bill, they mean the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. There was only one of those. I am of the opinion that the bill was too small -- I came to this opinion based on the opinions of respected economists -- and that too much of it was in the form of tax cuts (a third was tax cuts). So, if you take a program that is too small and devote one third of it to the least effective type of stimulus there is, it is not surprising that you don't get the expected results. Even so, it is fairly well established that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped add jobs to the economy and prevented things from being even worse than they were.

I understand that is is easy to critique, but do you have any positive suggestions? If you don't like stimulus, what is your suggestion for growing the economy? I would guess that your suggestion is for tax cuts and less government regulation. That gave us the Bush recession and a banking crisis. Do you have any better ideas?

My opinion is that we tried the liberal approach (stimulas w/ bush & obama, government expansion, more regulation) for the last 3-4 years and it hasn't worked so go back to the conservative idea of less taxes and less regulations. I personally was not happy with bailing out the banks or car companies, I would've rather let whatever fail fail. When failure occurs another purchaser can come around and buy the failed company at a properly lower value.

Check out BOA and their valuation they are basically JUNK and if they failed they might have been purchased at rate as low or maybe higher than their current valuation and by now would be growing rather than floundering. This holds true with all the too big too fail.

You believe this because you live in the DC region. If you lived anywhere else, you would understand that they were really hurting. We moved from NC and the DC area operates in a vacuum.

We never left the era of less taxes and we are still learning the lessons of less regulations. JP Morgan Chade was the last bank to not screw up and they just screwed up. So now that Jamie Dimon is hanging his head in shame the banking industry doesn't have a poster boy left.

Expecting stimulus of 700 billion to fix an economy of 15 trillion is bad math but the republicans would not support what the economists said was necessary. That's ignoring good advice.

On the other hand expecting tax cuts and deregulation to heal a budget gap created by tax cuts and a meltdown created by poor regulation is just a failure to learn from mistakes. Only a fool would expect th to have the opposite effect the next time.

Typo

[Anonymous]

Some sectors of women voters are beyond stupid.. Just look at TeaParty Women voting against their own self interest. The Lower income, non college educated, southern, rural, Evangelical, whites, all vote for congressmem who want to eliminate or cut funding for their health care, education, infrastructure, etc.