Yeah, we can stop right there.
He is deranged, and dangerous.
I'm pretty sure he still is.
-John
Yeah, we can stop right there.Schumer is a sociopath. Lets not forget he casued a run on the banks to help kick off the financial crisis of 2008 (just before the election - no accident)
How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25654303
So you're arguing that the stimulus was too small? Or for tax cuts for people who won't spend the money? Or for the Cut! Cut! mentality of laying off govt workers in the face of massive unemployment?
The vagueness of Right Wing whining is exquisite, particularly considering what they wanted at the time.
Would you rather lose your means to pay the rent, to keep your loved ones sheltered clothed and not find your family on the street or Obamacare? The point yet again is that the Democrats decided they wanted the later.
That doesn't really square with history though. The democrats pushed through the largest economic rescue package in history earlier that year. Seems like they were covering both.
Now I wish the stimulus had been much larger still and included fewer tax cuts, but that's a mistake in degree, not in kind.
Sounds like he finally gets it. When unemployment was being reported at 10.2%, do you need jobs or do you need your healthcare reformed?
So you're arguing that the stimulus was too small? Or for tax cuts for people who won't spend the money? Or for the Cut! Cut! mentality of laying off govt workers in the face of massive unemployment?
The vagueness of Right Wing whining is exquisite, particularly considering what they wanted at the time.
Your lack of reading comprehension is amazing.
The problem is with the idea of rescue as a solution. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, no more than there is tossing a life preserver to someone who has slipped off the deck of a ship with no guard rails, but there is when you just leave it pretty much at that and keep sailing on. The person in the water isn't comforted much by a lot of others nearby in the same situation watching the ship sail on while listing to the crew celebrate on a job well done.
Let's go the opposite here. Let's say that Obamacare consisted of a one time tax credit for 2K on all health care costs. How hard would you party over that? That's that Schumer gets, or at least I hope so. If no one can think of what might have been done besides a stimulus then we're pretty screwed in perpetuity.
I expect the Usual Suspects to start with "Bush", "Republicans" etc, which I note you haven't, but Schumer isn't a Republican. Instead he's looking at where his party has gone and the emphasis put on agenda and has come to a conclusion that what the party wants isn't really in step with the concerns of the people of this nation.
What should have been done in addition to stimulus?
I have to say that overall the country seems to be on an upward slope now, so I don't think we are too screwed.
I think that if we are going to have an economic system that uses money to procure the necessities of life, and the only way to make money for the average person is to work for it, than any nation that holds to the notion of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness must provide necessity fulfilling employment to any and all who are capable of work at the age of majority. No ship should sail until all people are aboard and will safely stay there.
The problem is with the idea of rescue as a solution. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, no more than there is tossing a life preserver to someone who has slipped off the deck of a ship with no guard rails, but there is when you just leave it pretty much at that and keep sailing on. The person in the water isn't comforted much by a lot of others nearby in the same situation watching the ship sail on while listing to the crew celebrate on a job well done.
Let's go the opposite here. Let's say that Obamacare consisted of a one time tax credit for 2K on all health care costs. How hard would you party over that? That's that Schumer gets, or at least I hope so. If no one can think of what might have been done besides a stimulus then we're pretty screwed in perpetuity.
I expect the Usual Suspects to start with "Bush", "Republicans" etc, which I note you haven't, but Schumer isn't a Republican. Instead he's looking at where his party has gone and the emphasis put on agenda and has come to a conclusion that what the party wants isn't really in step with the concerns of the people of this nation.
What exactly does Schumer think Obama should have done instead of ACA?
Republicans believe in tax cuts. When they get in power, they pass tax cuts immediately. They don't say, it's better if we did something else, they pass tax cuts. Even if it creates a massive deficit, they pass tax cuts. Even if the country is in the middle of the war that we need to raise taxes to pay for, Republicans pass tax cuts.
Democrats believe in universal health care coverage and progressive agenda. Democrat elected officials better move that agenda forward and fight for it, because if they abdicate or run away from it, the Democrat voters will just sit at home and let those officials lose elections. Schumer still doesn't get that. This is why Democrats lost big to Republicans in the middle of a massive economic recovery under a Democrat president from a recession caused by Republicans. The Democrats adopt the narrative of their opponents, or they run away and talk about everything other than what Democrats should be talking about. And if you do that, why would anyone bother showing up to elect you if you don't bother showing up for them?
Schumer disses Obamacare
I don't think he dissed Obamacare. I think he 'dissed' the Dems' decision to prioritize Obamacare above jobs and the economy.
Fern
Pray tell us what Repubs offered at the time, other than no life preservers & tossing more people overboard with their Cut! Cut! Cut! mentality? More trickle down from the Job Creators who were laying off millions?
We're screwed if we hold to the ideology that got us screwed in the first place, the deregulated free market finance flimflam in a low tax environment & the wild swings in the economy that it has always induced when financiers are allowed to run wild.
Like Repubs are in step with the concerns of the People in the slightest, or that they intend to do anything to dampen the economic swings their ideology embraces with great fervor.
Would you say that holding extended unemployment benefits hostage to fat cat tax cuts was in step with the concerns of the people at the time? Or just the concerns of the true Bush constituency?
Was holding the govt hostage to spending cuts & govt job cuts in the face of near economic Depression in step with the concerns of the people? How did it address the employment picture at the time, other than negatively?
The only way to prevent the need for economic rescue is to prevent the speculative bubbles that precede them & that's something Repub ideology will never accomplish.
Heh. Where would those jobs come from? The Job Creators who were laying off millions? Or from some other source, like govt spending?
And when those jobs fail to appear, do you expand child welfare programs, extend unemployment benefits, fund State govt to avoid more layoffs, or none of the above, which was the Repub plan at the time?
Years later, when Dems realize that they might have done better, does that mean that what Repubs wanted at the time wouldn't have made it worse?
Does that mean it wasn't Repub leadership & ideology that landed us in the greatest economic catastrophe since 1929?
Is there no significance in the fact that the standard bearers of that ideology, Bush & Cheney, were somehow absent from the 2008 Repub Convention? Did the Party condemn them as rogues, or do they still embrace the same ideology of failure?
What's different about the Repub Party today than when they led us to this? The faces on the propaganda posters? Different contrived "scandals" of distraction & titillation?
Or is it just the same whore in a different dress?
In other words, he offers that we should have had more ebil soshulism at the time, more big gubmint interference with the sacred Free Market, not less, which was what Repubs wanted.
Righties, of course, try to spin it into something else.
:thumbsup: This is like Dems walking away from being the party that support the principles of FDR.
That doesn't really square with history though. The democrats pushed through the largest economic rescue package in history earlier that year. Seems like they were covering both.
Now I wish the stimulus had been much larger still and included fewer tax cuts, but that's a mistake in degree, not in kind.
You are correct. The thread title has been edited for clarity.I don't think he dissed Obamacare. I think he 'dissed' the Dems' decision to prioritize Obamacare above jobs and the economy.
Fern
The arrogance of the leftists in charge of government at the time, under the tutelage of Obama the guy whose idea of leading was to say "we won", felt that they had the economy fixed. Knowing deep within their psyche's that throwing money at a problem always fixes it (yeah, we know otherwise) they threw money at the economy, put a check mark next to it declaring it fixed and moved on to the next item on the list. And although I used the word arrogance earlier it does not fully explain their actions. To paraphrase that same guy I quoted before, 'they acted stupidly'. Acted from a position based in a lack of knowledge and understanding and with zero intent of learning. The 'smartest guy in the room' felt he already knew the answer and governing as he did and still does today, it became so. Then and now, few if any are willing to tell the emperor he is naked and not clothed in finery.Well they sure as fuck were going to come from any effort from the left because 2 months in they were more concerned with healthcare than jobs.
-snip-
I still feel that Schumer has got an alternative agenda. On the surface it appears unnecessary to admit the mistake at this point. It's two years before the next election. Unless Schumer feels the party is that heavily damaged such that he needs to start some form of damage control this early I can think of no other reason for him to say what he's said. He appears to be a lone wolf in this endeavor so maybe it's just a case of senility is setting in. The only election that requires planning on this level two years out is a presidential one and that possibility is food for thought.
That's where I am. I think we ought to not look at government nor business as savior or enemy but potential means to make beneficial changes. As I've mentioned before the government could serve as facilitator and provide incentives both positive and negative for businesses to make decisions which benefit ourselves. It seems difficult to imagine that someone could not suggest that corporations which emphasize long term growth in jobs with security and decent wages and benefits can be rewarded. Those who instead reward CEOs for putting people on unemployment can make up the difference and then some. Shareholders will adapt to that by going the route which benefits them the most, and if that is changed to benefit the rest of us as well that seems a win/win.
The arrogance of the leftists in charge of government at the time, under the tutelage of Obama the guy whose idea of leading was to say "we won", felt that they had the economy fixed. Knowing deep within their psyche's that throwing money at a problem always fixes it (yeah, we know otherwise) they threw money at the economy, put a check mark next to it declaring it fixed and moved on to the next item on the list. And although I used the word arrogance earlier it does not fully explain their actions. To paraphrase that same guy I quoted before, 'they acted stupidly'. Acted from a position based in a lack of knowledge and understanding and with zero intent of learning. The 'smartest guy in the room' felt he already knew the answer and governing as he did and still does today, it became so. Then and now, few if any are willing to tell the emperor he is naked and not clothed in finery.
This is at the heart of the arguments being heard regarding Schumer's statement. Nobody likes to act in a stupid fashion - and have it discovered. When your mistakes start to glaringly define your core beliefs people have a tendency to go on the defensive. Mistakes of this magnitude can change the course of a nation. It's potentially 'a big fucking deal'.
I still feel that Schumer has got an alternative agenda. On the surface it appears unnecessary to admit the mistake at this point. It's two years before the next election. Unless Schumer feels the party is that heavily damaged such that he needs to start some form of damage control this early I can think of no other reason for him to say what he's said. He appears to be a lone wolf in this endeavor so maybe it's just a case of senility is setting in. The only election that requires planning on this level two years out is a presidential one and that possibility is food for thought.
And I would argue that it took way too long to pay out. If the people needed that money, they needed it sooner than later.
Heh. The people hardest hit in any massive economic downturn are the people at the bottom, Mitt's 47% who don't pay federal income tax. Explain how a tax refund would help them, short of an outright giveaway that Repubs would obviously oppose?
Perhaps you can explain how top tier tax cuts would have helped them any sooner in the trickle down way that hasn't delivered at all in 35 years?
Maybe you can tell us how cutting spending & forcing more layoffs would have helped unemployment numbers?
Have contrived scandals really created jobs? Or have they just given Repubs a way to tear down the opposition & Righties to sidestep into distraction & denial?