Chrysler: Look at yourselves Republicans
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 12-06-2008 - 8:55am |
Looks like Chrysler, which is privately owned by rich Republicans, is pulling all its right-wing strings in DC to get it a piece of that auto bailout $$$.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/business/06chrysler.html?hp
Defense contractors. Big oil. Big pharma. Same thing for the past 8 years in which this Republican Administration has spent trillions and pulled every regulatory string to help its buds without any regard for everyone else. This is what you are about. While the top of the party goes on its personal feeding frenzy with your taxpayer dollars, they whip you up with issues like anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, anti-liberal this and and liberal that. If you are a Republican making under 200K a year, you are getting played. Big time.
PS I am still for the auto bailout, but not to help rich Republicans. Rather I am strongly for it to help America because the terrible fallout due to one of these companies going under right now. I point this out to help Republicans understand their party's motivations and what their party is truly about.

Pages
Your first link is some guy's blog.
>>> Did somebody promise to address the national debt by borrowing? Do you have a link. TIA
I think the point was the libs whine and whine about Republican spending and then hypocritically applaud when Obama says that he won't address the national debt by any means and intends to exacerbate the problem by borrowing more and more so he can spend and spend and spend.
>>> Here's an illustration of how debt has accumulated under various adminstrations:
I had a picture of a corrupt baby driving a locomotive that's out of control to illustrate how Obama will lead the country but darn...it wouldn't upload.
>>> Well, I don't think the debt clock is "cute." What an "interesting" choice of words. I think it's astoundingly, shockingly high.
Said someone who supported the guy who intends to make it astoundingly, shockingly HIGHER. I think the hypocrisy needle is pinning the red.
>>> However still see nothing from you in the form of credible links, other than your opinion about the fact that there wasn't a big surplus when Clinton left office, the budget wasn't balanced, and the deficit has doubled, maybe tripled, etc.
I don't dispute the surplus...I dispute that Clinton had anything to do with it. You also haven't provided any context for the increased spending during the Bush administration and seem content to simply attack Bush without providing any valid reason...no big surprise there.
>>> The strange thing about some of the neoconservative's continuing denial of that fact is that when these surpluses were gained and the budget was balanced, the conservatives were behind Clinton's plans. The republicans in Congress deserve a lot of credit for it. I certainly realized that. None of those good things would have happened without the conservative's support.
If Clinton and the Congress were so successful, why was there a recession in 2000?
>>> As far as the deficit spending, due to the situation we are presently facing, YES, we're going to have to expand that deficit greatly to attempt to ease our economic melt down.
Oh...I understand...it's ok to spend trillions to "ease our economic melt down" and to offer free welfare checks and free healthcare... but not ok to spend on supporting our military or building our national security. I get it...if there's no handout, libs oppose "spending."
>>> That's one of the many reasons I voted for Obama - he's smart enough to realize what is needed now.
Really? Raising taxes, handing out welfare checks and offering free health care is "what's needed now? Wow...all the experts say just the opposite...Obama is an economic genius!
>>> And as he has stated the bill for this will have to be paid down the road. Does that mean eventually some kind of tax increase when we have hopefully rebounded? I don't see how it can be otherwise. What a shame the surplus was squandered during Bush's terms.
Yeah..."squandered"...like on a war and for national security. Like I said, when there are handouts, the libs are jumping for joy..."Sure, build up the deficit...but when it's for defense or national security, it's whine, whine, whine.
>>> The question we should ask ourselves is, with many of the same republican congressmen who were responsible for the surplus and the balanced budget during Clinton's tenure still in Congress during Bush's tenure, and being the majority for 6 of those years - what happened?
Right..."what happened"...hmmm...whatever could it be?...Gosh, ya know, I'm just sitting here scratching my head and just can't figure it out. Maybe I'll go over to that group of screaming libs who are attacking Bush for spending too much...surely THEY'LL know what they're screaming about and be able to tell me why Bush's spending was "bad." Oh...darn...guess not.
>>> Sure, the events of 9/11 threw us all into a devastated spiral; but I believe, and history won't be rewritten by the likes of Karl Rove on this, that the fear mongering by Bush and his minions caused both democratic and republican congressmen and the American public to buy into to the "misinformation" leading to our preemptive attack on Iraq;
Well, you might be right...if you weren't so completely wrong. Maybe you should look up a little history about what your demi-clod Clinton was doing in December, 1998. You might get a clue.
>>> and the resulting massive costs associated with that attack, not to mention the more terrible cost of loss of American lives place us where we are today. Why? Because those is power took their eyes off the ball with regard to our own domestic situation, and that includes all parties.
Except for the fact that the economic problems we're having today were born out of Democrat policies that the Democrats defended against Republican regulation.
The latest data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half of all federal individual income taxes—50.8 percent—are paid by the five percent of taxpayers who earn the most.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/746.html
I hate to say it, but it is fruitless to debate with you.
Me neither.
<<What a shame the surplus was squandered during Bush's terms.>>
Squandered and worse.
Pages